RADCO INTERNATIONAL Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2‑2‑1993 passed by the VI Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi in Rent. Case No. 1220 of 1992. By the said order, appellant is directed to vacate the premises bearing room No. 2‑A, situated at second floor, State Life Building, Sharah‑e‑Liaquat, Karachi. Earlier to this order, the learned Rent Controller had passed an order dated 1‑10‑1992, whereby appellant was directed to be proceeded against ex parte, as he had failed to file written statement and his side was closed. An application seeking to set aside the order dated 1‑10‑1992 was moved, which is also dismissed by order dated 3‑12‑1992. These orders are impugned in this appeal.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent filed ejectment application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance against the appellant on the sole ground of default in payment of rent. Appellant was served and on 3‑9‑1992 he moved an application for adjournment on the ground that .the Director of the appellant company was out of station and could not engage the Advocate. Time was allowed and the proceedings were adjourned to 20‑9‑1992 when again application for adjournment on similar ground was moved. The matter was adjourned to 1‑10‑1992 when again an application for adjournment was moved, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller and it was directed that the appellant be proceeded against ex parte. Affidavit‑in‑evidence was filed by the respondent but he was not cross examined by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant. As a result thereof, the impugned order, directing appellant's eviction was passed on 2‑2‑1993, against which the present Appeal is filed.

3. It is contended by Mr. A.Q. Malik, learned Advocate for the appellant, that the ejectment application was not filed by a duly authorised agent of the respondent and as such no order of eviction could be passed on such application even if the appellant had failed to appear or file written statement. In support of his contention, learned Advocate has referred to 1987 MLD 2818. I am afraid, said authority is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In that case the tenant had appeared and agitated the authority of the landlord to file the ejectment application, which did not prevail with the Rent Controller and the same point agitated before this Court was dealt with and it was held that proceedings filed on the basis of power of attorney being improper and illegal, entire proceedings culminating in passing of the ejectment order were unsustainable in law.

4. I have gone through the impugned orders and have also perused the R & P. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant before the trial Court had filed his power and thereafter sought three adjournments, one after the other. The last application was rejected and the ex parte order was passed against which an application was moved seeking to set aside the said order but it is also dismissed. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller in rejecting application for setting aside ex parte order as well as the order directing ejectment of appellant are passed in a proper and legal manner and no interference with such orders is called for. The appeal is dismissed in limine.

5. H.B.T./R‑257/K Appeal dismissed.