' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---An offer made by the learned counsel for the appellant and recorded in order dated 3-7-2006, has been put to the learned counsel for the respondent who says that he has instructions not to accept the saidoffer.
2. On 19-2-2004; the respondent filed an application for ejectment of the appellant from a shop located in Lahore Urban Area. Ejectment was sought on the ground of default in. Payment of rent since November, 2003 and bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation. Pursuant to a proclamation made in the newspaper the appellant put in appearance in Court .On 7-5-2004. His learned counsel filed his power of attorney. The case was adjourned to 21-5-2004 for filing of written reply. It was not filed on 21-5-2004, 5-6-2004, 18-6-2004 and 25-6-2004. On this date it is noted that copy of the petition has. Been handed over. The case was adjourned to 10-7-2004 and then to 3-9-2004 for written reply. On this date, an application was filed by the appellant for rejection of the ejectment petition. The objection raised was that the respondent has not filed affidavits of his witnesses along with the ejectment petition. The application was disposed of on 24-11-2004 and the case was adjourned to 7-12-2004 for filing of written statement. On this date again, reply was not filed and last opportunity was granted. The case was adjourned to 21-12-2004.
On this date whereas the appellant `filed an application under Order XI, rule 14, C.P.C., the respondent filed an application that the case is pending since several months and an order be passed for deposit of rent. On 26-3-2005, an order under section 13(6) of Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was passed for deposit of rent. On 28-4-2005, an application was filed by the appellant pointing out that since written reply has not been filed and the said order could not be passed. Learned Rent Controller promptly withdrew the order. He adjourned the case to 7-5-2005 giving a last opportunity for filing of written reply. However, written reply was not filed on 7-5-2005.
Request for adjournment was refused and the defence was struck off. The case was adjourned to 9-6-2005 for recording of evidence. On this date, note on the order sheet narrates that learned Presiding Officer has been transferred. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for recall of the said order dated 7-5-2005. This application was dismissed on 16-7-2005. On 29-7-2005, only learned counsel for the respondent appeared and he tendered affidavits of witnesses. On 21-9- 2005, closing statement was recorded. The case was adjourned to 5-10-2005. On this date again an application was filed for dismissal of the ejectment application. This application was dismissed on 18-10-2005. As misfortune would have it, learned Rent Controller passed an ejectment order on the ground that the order for deposit of rent has not been complied with. A review application was filed. The said order was recalled and vide order dated 31-10-2005, ejectment application was allowed. First appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by learned A.D.J., Lahore on 8-6-2006.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order striking off his defence is illegal and in the circumstances of the case an opportunity should have been granted. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order with reference to the conduct of the appellant apparent on the face of record.
4. I have gone through the records, copies whereof have been appended with this S.A.O. By the learned counsel for the appellant, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I may note here that a notice was issued to the respondent as the learned counsel for the appellant had offered to pay costs of Rs.20,000 for an opportunity to file written statement. As noted by me above, offer has not been accepted. I have already noted above in some detail the proceedings which took place before the learned Rent Controller. Not a single, reason is forthcoming as to why the written statement was not filed despite dozens of opportunities and particularly when the appellant was put on notice by the learned Rent Controller while adjourning the case to 7-5-2005 that this will be the last opportunity. It will be seen that the appellant managed to prolong the proceedings in the ejectment petition filed on 20-2-2004 for about 18 months without filing written reply. I do not find any question of law arising in this S.A.O. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine.