CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 05.11.2008, passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sahiwal and the order dated 28.03.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Zikariya Rasheed/respondent No. 1 had moved an ejectment application dated 13.03.2008, against the petitioner in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Sahiwal, under Section 19 of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 seeking his ejectment on the ground of his default towards the payment of rent. The learned Trial Court after entertaining the above-said application, vide his order dated 17.03.2008, directed issuance of summons/notices with registered postage for. 25.03.2008. The proceedings remained adjourned to different dates for the above-said purpose till 18.04.2008 when the learned Trial Court directed publication of notice through the newspaper by way of substitute service. The above-said publication was directed to be repeated for 24.05.2008, the next date fixed for the above-said purpose. On 24.05.2008 Ch. Ghulam Ahmed, Advocate appeared with his Power-of-Attorney on behalf of petitioner/defendant. Copy of the ejectment application was delivered to him and the case was posted for 06.06.2008 for filing of written reply. At the request of the petitioner/defendant's counsel, the proceedings were adjourned to 24.06.2008 for filing written reply on his behalf. However, the same was not filed within prescribed period of 10 days as provided under Section 22(2) of the Punjab Rent Premises Ordinance, 2002. As the above-said application to defend was filed beyond the prescribed period of 10 days, so it was turned down by the learned Trial Court and resultantly the ejectment order dated 05.11.2008 was passed by directing the petitioner/defendant to vacate the premises in dispute within one month from the day of passing the ejectment order. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide appellate order dated 28.03.2009 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal; whereby the ejectment order passed by the learned Trial Court was confirmed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the learned Courts below have misinterpreted and misconstrued the provisions of Section 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 while turning down the defence of the petitioner and also that both of the learned Courts have erred in law by not taking resort to Section 21 of the aforesaid Ordinance. It is also asserted that the petitioner was not provided proper opportunity.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at preliminary stage.
5. I have gone through the pleadings, the impugned ejectment order, the impugned appellate order as well as the order sheet of the learned Trial Court placed on the file by the petitioner. From the order sheet, it is apparent that in pursuance of publication of notice of the petitioner/ defendant for 24.05.2008, his counsel alongwith his Power of-Attorney had appeared before the learned Trial Court on 24.05.2008; when he was delivered copy of the ejectment order and the case was adjourned for 06.06.2008 for filing of written reply on his behalf. On 06.06.2008, the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant could not file any application to defend his case although as per certification by the Oath Commissioner, the application to defend is dated 06.06.2008. Anyhow for the reasons best known to the petitioner/defendant, the same was not filed and the proceedings were adjourned to 24.06.2008. The orders dated 24.06.2008, 27.06.2008 and 07.07.2008 respectively existing on the order sheet, do not speak of filing of any application to defend. From the order dated 12.07.2008, it seems that application to defend was posted to 26.07.2008 for arguments. After hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 08.11.2008, struck off the defence of the petitioner/defendant and passed the ejectment order.
6. I have gone through the relevant provisions of Sections 21 and 22 of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007. Section 21 says "That the defendant was bound to file his application to defend within 10 days from the date of service, of notice on him." The petitioner/defendant had failed to file any application to defend within 10 days accruing from 24.5.2008 till 24.06.2008 and then he also failed to file the same till 07.07.2008. In such-like cases, default on the part of the tenant to file the application to defend within period prescribed for purpose of defence of the tenant, under the ejectment proceedings under Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007 after striking off his right to defend, the Rent Tribunal is competent to pass ejectment order under Section 24 of the Ordinance.
Both the Courts have concurrently passed the ejectment order against the petitioner with sound reasoning in accordance with law. Both the impugned orders, in my view, are just and lawful.
Hence, no interference in the well-reasoned orders is warranted under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The instant petition being devoid of any merits is dismissed in limine. .