This appeal has been filed to challenge an order dated 23-12-1978 by which the appellant's appeal against the order of his eviction was dismissed by Sh. Muzaffar Hussain, Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. The respondents filed an application for ejectment of the appellant on the 5th of April 1976. On grounds of default and causing to the property with a view to impair its value. This application was contested inter alia on the ground that notice under section 30 of Act 28 of 1958 and 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance had not been served upon the appellant. The following issues were framed:
(1) Whether notice under section 30 of Act 28 of 1958 has been duly served upon the respondent so as to create the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? O. P. A.
(2) Whether the notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance VI of 1959 was essential to be served upon the respondent by the legal heirs of the deceased landlords, if so, to what effect on the present petition ? O. P. R. '
(3) Whether the respondent has caused damage to the disputed property so as to reduce its value and utility?
(4) If so to what effect upon the main petition?
3. It appears that the issue of default was not framed since in his statement dated 5-5-1976 the appellant had admitted that he had paid rent up to the month of June 1975 and had not thereafter made any payment. The default was thus admitted.
4. The learned trial Court answered all the issues against the appellant and allowed the application for ejectment also on the ground of default in the payment of rent. All the findings were maintained by the learned Additional District Judge.
5. This case was admitted to a regular hearing on the ground that the finding of default had been recorded without framing any issue on that point, and the appellant's evidence relating to the causing of the damage to the property in dispute had not been taken into consideration by the first appellate Court.
6. It is unnecessary to go into the question of the damage to the property since the order can be upheld on the ground of default. The default being. Admitted, it was not necessary to frame any issue on that point. The appeal is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed with costs.