AHMAD KHAN Versus MRS. S. HENRY LAI

ORDER

1. WAHEEDUDDIIN AHMED, J.‑ The dispute between the parties is in respect of property No. 9, Masson Road, Lahore. Respondent No. I filed an application under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance against the petitioner for his ejectment on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The case was adjourned to 19th December 1972 and 20th December 1972 for filing an amended reply to the amended application. On the 21st December 1972, it was represented that the petitioner has gone to Khartoum. Sudan and the case may be adjourned. The case was adjourned to 24th January 1973. On this date also the petitioner failed to appear and asked for the adjournment of the case. Thereafter the case was adjourned several times for the filing of the amended written statement on the ground that the petitioner was ill The case was finally heard by the Rent Cont roller on the 10th March 1973 and he struck off the defence of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to comply with the order of the Rent Cont roller of the previous date that the petitioner should appoint his Mukhtar.

2. The petition of challenged this order in F. A. O. No. 84 of 1973 in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, of the High Court on the 3rd July 9973 on the sole ground that no such appeal was directly competent before the High Court. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.

3. Ch. Qadir Bakhah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the order challenged id appeal before the High Court was not covered by the class of cases mentioned in section 15(1) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, He, therefore, contended that no direct appeal lay to the District Judge and a direct appeal lay to the High Court under section 15(4) as no appellate authority under section 15(1) has been provided for such cases. This contention of the learned counsel, prima‑facie, appears to be correct. We have gone into merits of the case and have come to the conclusion that this is not a fit case for interference. The petitioner was granted several adjournments for filing the amended written statement. He failed to do so and in our opinion, be was thereby prolonging the litigation. In these circumstances, the learned Rent Controller was perfectly justified in striating off the defence of the petitioner. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.

4. Petition dismissed,