2010 PLP 1601 (CLC)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

This writ petition has been directed against the judgment dated 19-6-2010 passed by Mr. Bedar Bakhat, learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and maintained the order of the learned Rent Controller.

2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that respondent No.1 filed an eviction petition whereupon the petitioner was summoned by the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner was obliged to file petition for leave to contest within 10 days of his appearance but he failed to do so. Hence the learned Rent Controller/Civil Judge 1st Class Faisalabad vide order dated 4-1-2010 ordered for the eviction of the petitioner under section 22 (vi) of Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal which was also dismissed on 19-6-2010 by learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad. Hence this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned judgments dated 4-1-2010 and 19-6-2010 passed by both the learned Courts below are against the law and facts. Further contends that the petitioner filed the application for leave to appear and defend the petition within time but due to negligence of the diary branch that application was attached with the suit for declaration filed by the petitioner in respect of the suit property. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has been condemned unheard as it is very much clear from the record that on 2-7-2009, counsel for the petitioner filed his power of attorney along with application for leave to defend, therefore, the writ petition be allowed, the impugned judgments passed by both the learned Courts below be set aside and the case be remanded back to the learned trial Court/Rent Controller for deciding it afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. The perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was summoned who filed his Wakalat Nama and the case was adjourned for 7-3-2009. On 7-3-2009, the petitioner did not file the required petition for leave to contest and case was subsequently adjourned for 14-3-2009, 26-3-209, 31-3-2009 and 4-4-2009. On 7-4-2009, the petitioner filed the written reply of the ejectment petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived that the required application for leave to contest was filed with another suit for declaration filed in respect of the suit land because the learned Rent Controller had provided a number of opportunities to the petitioner but the petitioner failed to submit application for leave to contest within prescribed period. The impugned orders passed by both the learned Courts below are legal orders which were passed after providing more than sufficient opportunities to the petitioner.

6. The outcome of the whole discussion is that this writ petition is without any substance, hence dismissed in limine. M.U.Y./N-66/L Petition dismissed.