' The petitioner is the tenant whose ejectment was ordered on account of his defence having been struck out by the Rent Controller for noncompliance of order of deposit of rent passed under section 13 (6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whose appeal therefrom was dismissed. He has through this constitutional petition now challenged the orders.
2. The order under section 13 (6) was passed on 25th July 1978, directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent which he was to determine himself, by 15th August 1978. And future rents before the 15th of each month in the landlord's Current Account No, 129 in the Samanabad Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan. He was further directed to produce the receipts on the next date, i. e. 17th September 1978, on which date the issues were also to be framed. On this latter date, the landlord represented that the order of the previous date had not been complied with. The petitioner's counsel was present but the petitioner himself did not appear though the Court waited for him. As there was no material to show that the deposit had been made in terms of the order of the previous date, the tenant's ejectment was ordered. The plea taken by his counsel that on the previous date, i. e. 25th July 1978, he had, after having got his presence noted, gone away to Shandara and that the order of deposit had been passed in his absence, was repelled with the observation that it was his duty to have kept himself informed of the orders of the Court. The tenant brought the appeal on 20th September 1978. And during its pendency, i. e., on 3rd October 1978, he deposited Rs, 800 being the arrears of rent from February to September 1978. The rent for July, August and September was in fact future rent. The default was, therefore, both in regard to arrears and future rents for July to September 1978. The appellate Court's order shows that the tenant's counsel had admitted that on return from Shandara at 2-00 p. m. On 25th July 1978, he had inquired about the date in the case. The appellate Court, therefore, found the tenant guilty of negligence and as such dismissed the appeal.
3. 25th of July 1978, was a date in the case meant for filing of replication and framing of issues. The tenant was duly represented by a counsel and could, therefore, be attributed the knowledge that an order under section 13 (6) would be passed on that date. In fact the tenant's counsel had earlier appeared in the Court and got his presence noted but had left without making any arrangement to represent the tenant. On his return at 2-00 p. m. He had inquired about the date fixed in the case.
The next date. i. e. 17th September 1978, had been fixed for the production of receipts and for framing of issues. The assertion made before me that the order under section 13 (6) having been passed in the absence of the tenant was not enforceable is, therefore, without substance. It was the duty of the tenant and his counsel to keep themselves informed of the orders and if they failed to do so, they are themselves to blame. On a similar question, it has been held in Ghulam Yasin v.
Bakhshomal (1) that a litigant cannot escape the consequences of the gross negligence of his Advocate and that if a tenant can escape the consequences of violating his obligations under section 13 (6) by passing the blame on to his agent, whoever he be, it would put a premium on negligence and perhaps even fraud. Similarly, in Javid Iqbal v. Rana Muzaffar Khan (2) it was held that not only the counsel but the petitioner also was negligent in the prosecution of his defence in his failure to keep himself fully informed of the order passed by the Rent Controller.
4. In the circumstance, the default cannot but be held to be wilful. 1, therefore, see no valid reason for interfering with the concurrent decision of the Courts below. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1973 Kar. 228 (2) 1976 SCM R 229 {{FOOT NOTE}}