CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---This writ petition has been directed against the order dated 17-7-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who dismissed the appeal and maintained the order dated 9-1-2010 passed by the learned Special Judge(Rent), Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in this writ petition are that the petitioner was tenant under respondent No,1 in Shop No,3 located within the premises of Ghulab Devi Chest Hospital, Lahore. The monthly rent of the suit shop was Rs,1319.
3. That the petitioner appeared on 17-12-2009 and the case was adjourned for permission to defend the petition but since no copy of eviction petition was served upon the petitioner to enable him to file the petition to defend the suit, so, the petitioner could not file a petition to defend. This aspect of the matter was not considered by both the courts below who passed the eviction order against the petitioner straightaway.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the courts below did not consider this very fact that petitioner was not supplied along with the summons copy of eviction petition, therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to submit petition to defend the eviction petition.
5. That the petitioner has been regularly paying the rent for the last 23 years. The learned Rent Controller has wrongly exercised his jurisdiction and passed an order of payment of rent at the rate of Rs,8000 per month while the petitioner had been paying rent at the rate of Rs,1319 per month, therefore, writ petition be allowed, impugned orders passed by both the courts below be set aside and case be remanded back to the learned Rent Controller for deciding it afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Perusal of record reveals that on 17-12-2009, the petitioner filed his Wakalat Nama and the case was adjourned for filing of application "leave to contest on 9-1-2010". On the said date, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared despite the fact that attendance of the petitioner was marked by the Reader, so, according to section 22(2) of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance appropriate action was taken against the petitioner.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that along with summons, the petitioner was not provided copy of the eviction petition, so that the petitioner may had filed petition for leave to defend is not warranted under the law because this ground was never agitated before the learned first appellate court, therefore, the petitioner could not be allowed to raise a new ground.
9. Perusal of record shows that the judgments passed by both the courts below are in accordance with law. There is no illegality in it. Writ petition is without any merit, same is dismissed in limine.