1. ' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 23-1-2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Rawalpindi, whereby his miscellaneous application seeking rejection of the affidavits submitted by respondents Nos.2 to 8 in an ejectment petition filed by them, was disallowed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that at the time of filing of the ejectment petition, the landlord had only submitted two affidavits of Ashiq Hussain and Muhammad Saleem but their own affidavits were not submitted so the requirements of section 19(4) of the Rented Premises Act, 2009 were not fulfilled; that subsequently new affidavits were submitted containing additional grounds, which were not taken in the ejectment petition; that once the affidavits of the witnesses are submitted, no new ground can be taken in the subsequent affidavits; that the above mentioned affidavits cannot be brought under consideration under the law and as such the petitioner made a prayer that the same be rejected but his application was disallowed in mechanical manner without bringing under consideration the relevant facts.
2. 3.No doubt section 19(4) of the Rented Premises Act, 2009 provides that the landlord will submit his affidavit and affidavits of not more than two witnesses along with the eviction petition at the time of filing of the same but it is no where provided that affidavits cannot be submitted subsequently.
3. No penal provision is provided for non-submission of the affidavits at the time of institution. This is merely a directory provision as rightly held by the learned Special Judge (Rent). The legislature did not intend to deprive the parties to produce evidence merely due to omission to submit the affidavits along with the ejectment petition or the application for leave to contest and the only aim appears to be expeditious conclusion of the proceedings under the Rented Premises Act, 2009. It is the basic principle of law that one should be given maximum opportunity to produce the evidence in support of the one's contention. The other plea that the unauthorized contentions were raised against the contents of the ejectment petition also was rightly repelled by the learned Special Judge (Rent) with the observation that this objection could be raised at the time of arguments.
4. Naturally one cannot be allowed to take new ground in the affidavits and the same would be considered to the extent of the grounds already taken in the ejectment petition or the written reply in form of application for leave to contest, as the case may be. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The interlocutory order passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) cannot be assailed through writ petition unless it is established that the same is void due to lack of jurisdiction or is otherwise perverse and whimsical. For the reasons supra, the writ petition is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed.