M.A. ZAFAR, J. --- This second appeal has been filed by Malik Ghulam Farid appellant against the judgment dated 29.10.2008 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the ejectment order dated 2.7.2008 passed by learned Rent Controller, was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Kh. Khalid Mahmood respondent herein instituted an ejectment petition against the appellant in respect of properties Nos. 29, 30 situated at Mohanpura Rawalpindi consisting of two shops and a flat having three rooms, on the ground of default in payment of monthly rent as well as personal need.
3. Respondent entered appearance and submitted his written reply on 17.10.2006 wherein he categorically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and out of the pleadings of the parties; the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on 13.11.2006:---
(1) Whether the "Master tenant relationship" exists between the parties regarding the instant suit property ? OPR
(2) Whether the respondent is a valid tenant under the petitioner till institution of instant petition?
0.P Parties.
(3) Relief.
4. Appellant was called upon to produce his evidence but on 6.2.2007 when the case was fixed for evidence he failed to appear before the learned Rent Controller, therefore, he was proceeded against ex-parte and the learned Rent Controller after recording ex-parte evidence of the respondent/landlord passed an ex-parte ejectment order on 10.10.2007. However, the learned Rent Controller granted a period of two months to the appellant for handing over vacant possession of the said property to the respondent/landlord.
5. In the ejectment proceedings petitioner \ entered appearance before the learned Rent Controller on 5.9.2006. He submitted his written reply on 17.10.2006 denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and from the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed the issues on 13.11.2006. After framing of issues case was adjourned to 2.12.2006 for evidence of the appellant and on the said date, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, the ejectment petition was adjourned for 4.1.2007 for the same purpose. On the said date, again it was adjourned to 6.2.2007 on the request of the appellant for producing his evidence. On 6.2.2007 appellant failed to appear before the learned Rent Controller and he was proceeded against ex-parte, thereafter, the ejectment petition was adjourned for 3.3.2007, 17.3.2007, 27.4.2007, 21.5.2007, 4.6.2007, 11.6.2007, 18.7.2007, 30.7.2007, 10.9.2007, 28.9.2007 and finally on 10.10.2007 when the ejecment order was passed by the learned Rent Controller. From 6.2.2007 till 10.10.2007 appellant neither joined the proceedings nor moved any application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings.
6. That during the pendency of execution, appellant moved an application before the learned Rent Controller on 7.3.2008 for setting aside the ex-parte ejectment order dated 10.10.2007 and expressed his desire to deposit Rs. 80,000/- as arrears of rent due and deposited the same on 4.4.2008 with the National Bank of Pakistan. However, the learned Rent Controller rejected the application for setting aside the ejectment order dated 10.10.2007 vide impugned order dated 2.7.2008.
7. In an execution the learned Rent Controller issued warrants of possession time and again and lastly on 2.7.2008 he passed the order, which is as under:--- "Judgment-debtor is directed to vacate the premises. In case vacation of premises is not done by judgment debtor, warrants of possession in accordance with decree of the Court be issued subject to deposit of process fee for 16.7.2008."
8. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order passed by the learned Rent Controller refusing to set aside ex-parte ejectment orders, petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge'on the ground that after depositing the required amount of rent by the appellant it was obligatory on the part of learned Rent Controller to give him chance to adduce his evidence in the Court as the same was verbally promised by him that after depositing the said amount by the appellant, the impugned ex patio order will be set aside and the same was not done rather warrants of possession were issued by the learned Rent Controller. The submissions made by the appellant before the learned Appellate Authority were not accepted and the appeal filed by him was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 29.10.2008.
9. The present appeal has been filed in which the order dated 2.7.2008 passed by learned Rent Controller and Judgment dated 29.10.2008 passed by learned Addl. District Judge have been assailed, contending therein that learned Rent Controller ought to have framed issue on the application of appellant and to provide an opportunity to him to produce evidence.
10. The deposit of arrears of rent i.e. Rs. 80,000/- at the belated stage of the ejectment proceeding was nothing but was an effort made by appellant to frustrate the. Ejectment order passed against him. The assertion of the appellant that he fell ill and could not appear on the date when ex-parte proceedings were ordered to be taken against him on 6.2.2007 till filing application for setting aside exparte order on 7.3.2008 has not been substantiated by any evidence or medical certificate issued by an authorized medical officer appending the same with application, from which, it could be proved that the appellant due to the seriousness of his. Ailment failed to appear before the learned Rent Controller for about more than a year. The explanation given by the appellant is unbelievable. .
11. For the forgoing reasons, there is no force in this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the Courts below.
Resultantly, present appeal is dismissed. However, on the verbal request of learned counsel for the appellant to grant some time to the appellant for the vacation of the premises, one-month time is- granted to the appellant for the vacation of the said, premises. .