IRAN SHAH Versus ALI MUHAMMAD

ORDER

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), is from the order, dated 23‑4‑1985, passed by the Controller, Hyderabad, whereby he has ordered the appellant to vacate the quarter situated at Cotton Waste Factory on plot bearing No.G/72‑C.S. No.2358, Gujrati Para, Tando Yousuf, Hyderabad.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly stated, are that the respondents filed an application under section 15 of the Ordinance for eviction of the appellant on the grounds of default in payment of the rent, damage to the property by demolishing the existing quarter and raising a double‑storeyed construction thereon, and for personal use.

3. The notice of the application was served on the appellant on 7‑11‑1984, for appearing in the Court on 12‑11‑1984. Thereafter, on 12‑11‑1984, the appellant appeared in the Court and requested for adjournment to engage a counsel and accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 3‑12‑1984. On this date an application was moved by Amir Badshah, who, it is stated at the bar, is the nephew of the appellant, for adjournment on the ground that the appellant had gone to Attock as his son‑in‑law has been arrested there. Accordingly, the hearing was again adjourned to 17‑12‑1984. On 17‑12‑1984, the appellant again sought adjournment on the ground that he could not engage a Counsel because he had gone to Attock and returned from Attock only one day earlier. Again the application was granted and the hearing was adjourned to 3‑1‑1985. On this date he remained absent and the Controller passed an order for ex parte proceeding under section 19 (2) of the Ordinance. Thereafter, on 20‑2‑1985, the appellant moved an application for setting aside the order, dated 3‑1‑1985, for ex parte proceeding. The application was heard and dismissed by order dated 24‑3‑1985. Finally on considering the affidavit filed in support of the application the order impugned in this appeal was passed.

4. 1 have heard Mr. S. Jehangir Hussain Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Siddique, learned Counsel for the respondents, who was issued a pre‑admission notice under the order of this Court, dated 30‑7‑1985.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a plea that the appeal was barred by time. According to him the order was passed on 23‑4‑1985, and the appeal was filed on 21‑6‑1985. However, the main appeal was filed on 21‑5‑1985, which was well within time. On 2‑6‑1985, only the memorandum of appeal was filed. Therefore, the preliminary objection has no force and accordingly it is rejected.

However, on merits I find that the appellant has no case for interference with the order of the Controller by this, Court.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that notice for payment of rent was served on 29‑9‑1984 and whereas the eviction application was filed on i5‑10‑1984, before the expiry of 30 days, and therefore, tile appellant was not in default of payment of the rent. This objection was also raised before the Controller but the learned Controller relying on Sh. Muhammad Ashraf v. Sh. Muhammad Almas PLD 1981 ? Lah. 53, held that the period of 30 days was over during the pendency of the application, and therefore the same was competent. However, the application for eviction was not only on the ground of default ? but also the ground of demolishing the quarter and raising double storeyed construction without permission of the respondents, and for personal use. The learned Controller has allowed the, application on all the three grounds. No defence whatsoever was produced and no submission is made with regard the other two grounds. Even if it is assumed that the Controller could not have passed order of eviction on the ground of default in payment of the rent, his order on the other two grounds is according ? to law 'and I therefore, find no merits in this appeal and accordingly dismiss it .

H.B.T‑ Appeal dismissed.