MUNAWAR HUSSAIN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM

MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 12th August, 1997 passed by. learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.403 of 1994.

2. Relevant facts briefly mentioned are that petitioner on 10th June, 1992, filed an application under section 13 of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance seeking ejectment of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 from House No.D-833, Bilal Town, Jhelum City, more particularly described in the title of main eviction application. Respondent filed written statement on 22nd September, 1992, repudiating relationship of landlord and tenant. It was specifically asserted that eviction proceedings were launched only to blackmail the respondents. Legal right of the petitioner and locus standi to file the petition was also challenged. Considering the pleadings, learned trial Court (Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Jhelum) framed only one issue regarding existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and fixed the case for petitioner's evidence on 29th October, 1992. Petitioner was unable to produce evidence on 29-10-1992, 6-12-1992 and 16-1-1993 and throughout sought adjournments to arrange evidence. Trial Court has expressly mentioned in the order-sheet, dated 16th January, 1993 that final opportunity for leading evidence was being granted to petitioner. It may be seen that again on 30th February, 1993 petitioner failed to produce evidence and sought further adjournment, which was, however, granted. On 23rd March, 1993 and 9th May, 1993 the Presiding Officer was on leave and case, therefore, could not proceed. However, it is quite apparent from the record that evidence of petitioner was not in attendance on aforementioned two dates of hearing. On 9th June, 1993 case came up for hearing before Rent Controller. Counsel for the parties were present. Once again petitioner had failed to produce evidence and requested for adjournment. The Court thus postponed the matter to 20th July, 1993. Eventually again on 20th July, 1993 no evidence was produced. Learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Jhelum on 20-7-1993 declined to grant further adjournment and closed the side of petitioner. For want of evidence issue regarding relationship of landlord and the tenant was decided against the petitioner and eviction application was dismissed. Order, dated 20th July, 1993 passed by trial Court is reproduced below:--

"The evidence of the petitioner is not available. The petitioner himself has not appeared to explain as to why he has not brought evidence in spite of having availed opportunities including the last opportunity which was granted to him on 16-1-1993. This is a rent petition. The adjournment to the petitioner cannot be granted in a mechanical way. He should have shown sufficient cause for the adjournment which he has failed to do. Hence his evidence is closed. The preliminary issue framed in this ejectment petition is decided against the petitioner and his ejectment petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. File be consigned to record after its completion."

2. Petitioner feeling aggrieved on 2nd September, 1993 filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 177 of 1993 before learned Additional District Judge, Jhelum, who on hearing the parties and consideration of record also dismissed the appeal by means of judgment, dated 25th January, 1994. Operative observations appearing at para. 6 are reproduced hereunder: --

"The ejectment petition was filed on 10-6-1992. Issues were settled on 28-10-1992. The appellant was granted sufficient opportunities. The record reveals that he appended photo-copies of the document relied upon by him, which means that he was in possession of those documents. It was easy job for him to appear and produce those documents. He has only to establish his ownership and the fact that he is landlord of the property. But despite that, he failed to discharge his liability. The learned Rent Controller provided sufficient opportunity and then last opportunity was given. Before proceeding in the case, the appellant pleaded that he was ill, but without any proof. In these circumstances, I am unable to show any indulgence in his favour. The attitude of the appellant is such which cannot be appreciated and given effect to. The learned Rent Controller has proceeded with the case in accordance with law, which does not require any interference by this court. "

3. Petitioner then challenged abovementioned two orders before Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No.403 of 1994. Eventually this petition was also dismissed vide judgment, dated 12th August, 1997 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court. The conclusions contained in para. 4 are also reproduced:--

"There is no cavil with the proposition that the principles enshrined in both the C.P.C. and the Qanun-e-Shahadat (No.4 of 1984) are not strictly applicable to proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance before the Rent Authorities but the matter does not end here. The principles enshrined/detailed in .that regard to be adhered to for resolution of all contentions matters are one on the question that the Courts should not go by the technicalities alone. There is no dearth of authorities for the proposition that technicalities should not stand in the way of Courts to resolve the dispute on merit. See Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali etc. (PLD 1963 SC 382). What meets the eye in the instant lis is that on 16-1-1993 a request was made on behalf of the petitioner to allow him another opportunity to produce his evidence for 3-2-1993. On 13-2-1993 his learned counsel was unwell and a request for postponement was allowed then by directing fixation of the case on 27-3-1993. Succeeding two dates of hearing i.e., 27-3-1993 and 9-5-1993 could not deliver the goods as the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. The last order talks of the earlier adjournment and directing the fixation of the case for 19-6-1993. Petitioner was not present even on the said date and, in the presence of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was postponed to 20-7-1993 when a request in that regard was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord as below:--

This establishes a nexus' between all the preceding dates of hearing. It cannot but be observed that at none of the dates of hearing the petitioner had brought all his witnesses and/or other documentary evidence to be brought on the record on his behalf. The learned Rent Controller was left with no option but to make the order that he did. The same having been upheld by appellate forum, has not been shown to be suffering from any jurisdictional error to admit of any proceedings in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution."

4. Through present petition for leave to appeal orders of Lahore High Court and two forums below have been assailed.

5. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court, learned counsel for petitioner, emphatically urged that reasonable opportunity was not granted by the trial Court for adducing evidence. It was further argued that Presiding Officer was not. present on 27-3-1993 and 9-5-1993. Therefore, next date for hearing, namely 19-6-1993 was fixed by the Reader. Learned counsel contended that on said date he was not obliged to produce any evidence, therefore, no occasion existed for him to seek adjournment. According to him, in view of said reasons dismissal of the eviction application by closing evidence on 20-7-1993 was not proper.

6. We have carefully perused the record and considered above arguments. The entire record speaks for itself. Admittedly petitioner after filing eviction application on 10-6-1992, despite several opportunities neither furnished the list of witnesses nor was able to produce evidence to substantiate his stand till 20-7-1993, when Trial Court directed dismissal of the eviction application by closing the evidence of his side. Bare perusal of order-sheets indicates that even petitioner or his authorised attorney had not appeared before the Court on any of the dates of hearing. Record speaks volumes about petitioner's extraordinary negligence in persuing the case. It was obligatory for the petitioner to have taken effective steps either for producing or summoning the evidence to support his claim of being landlord of the house in occupation of the respondents. Trial Court had shown sufficient indulgence and there does not appear any impropriety or defect for ultimately closing side of the petitioner on account of his consistent failure to produce evidence despite seeking repeated adjournments. The trial Court could not be deemed at the mercy of petitioner or totally helpless to await till petitioner chooses to comply with repeated direction of producing evidence. Thus, conclusions drawn by the High Court and two forums below in rejection of petition for the eviction of respondents filed by the petitioner are substantial, sufficiently convincing and based on sound reasonings. There is hardly any ground which may warrant interference in the impugned judgments.

7. For the above reasons we find no substance in the petition, which is consequently dismissed and leave prayed for is declined.

M.B.A./M-123/S Petition dismissed.