ABDUL MAJID Versus RENT CONTROLLER, CANTONMENT HYDERABAD Andother
This matter originated as a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sind, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an ejectment order. The petitioner, a tenant, faced an ex parte ejectment order from the Rent Controller, Hyderabad Cantonment, due to persistent failure to appear or file a written statement despite multiple adjournments over a year. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this order through an application under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and subsequent appeals to the District Judge. The core legal question was whether the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge regarding the ex parte ejectment were legally flawed or suffered from jurisdictional defects. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller acted lawfully in proceeding ex parte, as the petitioner was intentionally delaying court proceedings. Finding no evidence of mala fide or legal error in the concurrent findings, the Court affirmed the High Court's decision to decline relief in its writ jurisdiction, concluding that there was no justification for interference.
- Can a Rent Controller proceed with an ex parte ejectment order if a tenant repeatedly fails to appear or file a written statement?
- Does the High Court have discretion to decline relief in writ jurisdiction when concurrent findings of lower courts are not shown to be legally defective?
- Is an ex parte order passed by a Rent Controller due to intentional delay by the tenant legally sustainable?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
SHAH NAWAZ KHAN, J-Abdul Majid petitioner has submitted this civil petition for special leave to appeal under Article 185 (3) of the Cons--titution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. To set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Sind in Constitution Petition No. 482 of 1972.
2. The petitioner was the tenant of the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 in a house described in the petition.
The respondents moved a petition before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad Cantonment in May, 1968, seeking the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The case was adjourned on several dates because the petitioner would not appear and attend the hearing nor he filed his written statement, although in this petition he states that he had been attending the hearings, but it is not borne on record. An ex party order of ejectment was con--sequently passed against the petitioner. He then filed an application under Order IX, rule 13, C. P. C., which was dismissed. He then filed an appeal be--fore the District Judge, which was entrusted to Additional District Judge, who dismissed it, but later in the Constitution Petition No. 287 of 1970 an objection was taken that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction under the said Act. The petition was allowed and the case was directed to be heard by the District Judge, Hyderabad himself and the appeal was to be treated as pending. Later when the appeal was heard the District Judge dismissed it on 20-9-1972. The petitioner then submitted a Constitution Petition No. 482 of 1972 in the High Court of Sind at Karachi on the ground that the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge were illegal ultra vires and without lawful authority, hence inoperative and of no legal effect. The High Court dismissed that petition on 16-11-1981 and the petitioner has now moved this Court through this petition seeking leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, failed to convince us that the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge suffered from any legal defect or that the decision of the High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power in dismissing the writ petition was patently wrong. It appears that no specific allegation with regard to mala fide had at any stage been made. The fact that the hearing was adjourned on several occasions during the period of more than a year because the present petitioner failed to appear or file written statement is not disputed. The Rent Controller being fully satisfied that petitioner was intentionally delaying the process of the Court and was not appearing to be heard had no option to proceed against him ex parte. We find no mistake in the conclusion of the Rent Controller or that of District Judge. Apart from that the High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction declined to render any relief to the petitioner. There appears no justification for us to interfere. . This petition is, therefore, dismissed.