1984 PLP 304 (MLD)

S.27(3)--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--Affect of repeal of Ordinance (VI of 1959)--Interpretation of statutes--Rights of parties to be governed by repealed Ordinance, 1959, but in so far as procedure is concerned, provisions in that regard contained in Ordinance, 1979 are to be followed.-- [Interpretation of statutes]. (c) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)

S.19(5)--Issues, framing of--Contention that relationship of landlord and tenant being denied, a preliminary issue should be framed, held, had no force in circumstances-- Section 19(5) provides that instead of formally framing issues arising between parties, Rent Controller shall state them briefly in judgment and shall record findings on each of such issue separately--Rent Controller deciding petition following provisions of S.19(5) finding could not lie illegal. Abdul Majeed Khan for Appellant. S.Azizul Hassan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1983. Ejectment Case No. 5270/78 was filed by the respondent/landlady for the ejectment of the appellant/tenant from the premises in question on the ground of default in the payment of rent since August, 1978. The appellant filed a short written statement in which she denied that the respondent was the owner of the premises in question. It was further denied that the appellant was the tenant of the respondent. The husband of the respondent by name of Muhammad Yaqoob Butt filed affidavit-in-evidence dated 26-2-1980 in which the case of the respondent was affirmed and it was averred that the appellant was a wilful defaulter. On 12-7-1980 the case was fixed for recording the evidence. Husband and attorney of the respondent was present before the Rent Controller so that he could be cross-examined on behalf of the appellant but no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and the evidence in the form of an affidavit on behalf of the respondent remained uncontroverted. The side of the respondent was closed by the Rent Controller. The case was then adjourned to 23-7-1980 for appellant's affidavit. On 23-7-1980 the respondent's Advocate was present but the clerk of the Advocate of the appellant requested for an adjournment. The case was then adjourned to 29-7-1980. On 29-7-1980 the Advocate for the respondent was present but neither the appellant nor her counsel were present. The order was passed at 1.20 p.m. on 29-7-1980 by the Rent Controller closing the side of the appellant. The case was then adjourned to 6-8-1980 when arguments were heard on behalf of the respondent. No one appeared on behalf of the appellant on that day also. By order dated 25-8-1980 the ejectment application filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellant was ordered to be ejected. Being aggrieved, the appellant has approached this Court in First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the 1979 Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. I have heard Mr.Abdul Majeed Khan learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Azizul Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. It was first contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could not appear before the Rent Controller as she was suffering from chronic diabetese and reliance has been placed on a medical certificate filed with the memo. of appeal in the present case. A mere production of a medical certificate at the stage of appeal that the appellant was suffering from chronic diabetese does not make out any case on behalf of the appellant for her non-appearance before the Rent Controller. It was then contended that it was the fault of the Advocate of the appellant in not defending the proceedings. No such ground has been taken in the memo. of appeal. Further, as observed earlier there was no plausible reason given for the non-appearance of the appellant and for the appellant not prosecuting her case. It was also argued that another opportunity should be given to the appellant to defend the proceedings and the impugned order should be set aside. In my view in the facts and circumstances of this case a fair opportunity had been granted to the appellant but she did not pursue her case and no ground has been made out for setting aside the order of the Rent Controller. 3. It was next argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that relationship of landlady and tenant had been denied in the written statement and, therefore, a preliminary issue should have been framed by the Rent Controller, This is a case which is covered by section 27(3) of the 1979 Rent Ordinance and as such in so far as rights of the parties are concerned these are to be governed by the repealed 1959 Rent Ordinance but in so far as the procedure is concerned, the provisions in that regard contained in the 1979 Rent Ordinance is to be followed. Section 19(5) of the 1979 Rented Premises Ordinance provides that instead of formally framing issues arising between the parties, the Rent Controller shall state them briefly in the judgment and shall record findings on each such issue separately. In this case the agreement of tenancy dated 25-4-1978 filed by the respondent was denied by the appellant as a forged document. Two issues were framed and one of the issues was whether the agreement of tenancy dated 25-4-1978 was a forged document and the other issue was whether the appellant was a defaulter in the payment of rent. Both these issues were separately dealt with by the Rent Controller and as no' one had appeared on behalf of the appellant, the evidence of the respondent was accepted and the issue regarding the agreement of tenancy being a forged document was decided against the appellant. In my view no illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in not framing a preliminary issue earlier. The issue about the relationship of landlady and tenant depended on the agreement of tenancy dated 25-4-1978 about which al specific issue had been framed. I find no merit in this Appeal F.R.A. No.683/80 is dismissed but with no order as to costs. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is an old lady and also a widow. The appellant is granted time till 30-6-1984 to vacate the premises. M. A. K. Appeal dismissed.