' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.--- Through the instant constitutional petition the petitioner/tenant has assailed ex parte eviction order dated 27-2-2013, passed against him by the learned Rent Tribunal, Lahore and the judgment dated 1-7-2014 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby due to non-deposit of court fee his appeal has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1/landlord filed ejectment petition against the petitioner seeking his eviction from Quarter No.46, Block-2, Sector B-1, Township, Lahore, on the grounds; (i) wilful default in payment of monthly rent, (ii) causing damage to the demised house; and (iii) expiry of tenancy period. The petitioner did not appear in the court despite issuance of notice through proclamation as such he was proceeded against ex parte and his eviction order was passed on 27-2-2013. He filed appeal, which was dismissed due to non-affixation of court-fee, vide judgment of the learned lower appellate Court dated 1-7-2014. Hence, the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ex parte order dated 27-2-2013 is against the settled principle of law that no one should be condemned unheard; that the ex parte order was obtained by practicing fraud and cheating; that the learned lower appellate Court has illegally non-suited the petitioner on the ground of non-deposit of court fee; that the learned lower appellate Court mistakenly relied upon the cases reported in PLD 1969 Karachi 35 and 1986 MLD 692 (Lahore), inasmuch in that case the provisions of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 were made applicable whereas case of the present petitioner falls within the ambit of The Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009; that the impugned order and judgment are against law and facts on the record; that while passing the impugned order/judgment both the forums below have failed to apply their minds judiciously.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The record shows that notices were sent for service of the petitioner at the same address which is given by him in the present writ petition but he did not receive the same whereupon notice was pasted at the door of his house. Even after publication of notice in the newspaper he opted not to appear before the learned Rent Tribunal. It shows that the petitioner willfully avoided service of notim In these circumstances, the learned Rent Tribunal rightly proceeded against him ex parte on 18-12-2012. The petitioner had the remedy to get the ex parte order dated 27-2-2013 set aside under section 21(b) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 within 10 days from the date of knowledge but he did not avail the said remedy and filed appeal, which was also barred by limitation and no explanation was furnished for filing a delayed appeal.
6. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of noncompliance of order of deposit of court fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 does not provide any provision for deposit of such court-fee at the time of filing appeal. Under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restrict Ordinance, 1959 court fee was payable on filing appeal as the final order passed in an ejectment petition has the force of a decree of the civil court. Similarly, in section 31 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 it is provided that a Rent Tribunal shall execute an order passed under this Act by a Rent Tribunal or a District Judge or an Additional District Judge as a decree of a Civil Court and for this purpose, the Rent Tribunal may exercise any or all the powers of a Civil Court. In both the above said statutes the "final order" passed by the Rent Tribunal has the force of a "decree of civil court". Therefore, the law relating to affixation of court fee will remain the same with reference to both enactments. The learned lower appellate Court has thus, rightly relied upon the cases of Khan Ghulam Hasan Khan v. Dr. Rashid Ahmed (PLD 1967 Karachi 35) and Muhammad Saloob Qureshi v. Muhammad Bashir and al: other (PLD 1986 Lahore 14). In the case of Dr. Khalid Karim v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi (PLD 1991 Lahore 1) the following has been observed as under-- "Under the law, a plaint or a memorandum of appeal cannot be considered to be properly filed as long as it does not bear the requisite court-fee. Proceedings before a Rent Controller are initiated by presentation of an application and not .a plaint. Hence, the provisions of Court Fees Act relating to plaints are not attracted to such applications. An appeal against the order of the Rent Controller having force of a decree is, however, governed by Schedule-I of Article 1 of the Court Fees Act and ad valorem court fee is payable on the subject matter of the dispute. The value of the subject matter in appeals is worked out on the basis of annual rental value of the property."
In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the appeal filed by the present petitioner required affixing of ad valorem court-fee i.e. 7.5% of the annual rental value of the demised premises. The learned lower appellate Court has thus not committed any illegality in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for not depositing the requisite court-fee.
7. For what has been discussed above, I see no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.