The applicant-tenant was ordered to be ejected by the Rent Controller on 22-12-1970. He filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned appellate authority on 30-6-1971. The landlord filed second appeal bearing S. A. O. No. 23 of 1972. On the date of hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the then respondent, the present applicant. Ex parte proceedings were taken. The appeal was finally accepted. By my learned brother Muhammad Afzal Lone, J. On 18-11-1979. The applicant- tenant has filed the above titled applications on 25-5-1980, saying that the applicant came to know of the judgment of the High Court when the landlord tried to take posses--sion of the shop in question on 15-5-1980. He came to Lahore and got in touch with his counsel, Mr. A. R. Shaukat, Advocate to find out the actual position. The learned counsel filed an application for inspection on 18-5-1980 and actually inspected the record on 19-5-1980. The application for setting aside the ex parte order, condonation of delay and for stay order noted above, were filed on 25-5-1980.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the appli--cant was not served for the date of hearing and that the names of his counsel were - not shown in the cause list and consequently the ex parte proceedings taken against the applicant deserve to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the landlord submitted that the application for setting aside the ex parte order states that the applicant was not served but now it is being urged that the names of his counsel were not shown in the cause list. If the counsel bad been engaged, the plea that the applicant was not - served is obviously false for the reason that it was after service that the applicant would have engaged his counsel and in this event, the application, being based on falsehood, is liable to be dismissed straight away. It is further contended that if the plea that the names of counsel for the applicant's were not mentioned in the cause list and that was the cause of ex parte proceedings be taken as correct, even then, the application deserves dismissal for the reason that undeniably the applicant and his counsel have come to know of the order, after inspection of the High Court file, on 19-5-1980. The application for setting aside the ex parte pro-- ceedings, etc. Were not filed until 25-5-19b0. There was no justification for delay of six days more after full knowledge of the facts of the case.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view. That delay has been caused after full knowledge of the facts on inspec--tion of the High Court file on 19-5-1980. There was no justification for the applicant not to have moved the Court for the next six days until he filed the applications above titled on 25-5-1980. In the circum--stances of the case it was essential that application for setting aside ex parte proceedings should have been filed immediately as soon as the knowledge had been obtained. Further, the application for setting aside ex parte ' proceedings if believed, will destroy the plea that the learned counsel for the applicant had filed their power of attorney because if they. Had done so, there would have been no need to serve the applicant for the date of hearing which is complained through this appli--cation . That. The applicant was not served. If the oral plea of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had filed the power of attorney earlier than the ex parte proceedings and the names of the counsel did not appear in the cause list and that was the reason for their non-- appearance, is to be taken into account, it is to be seen that this plea was not mentioned in the application for setting aside of the ex parte proceedings. Not a word was said in the application that on behalf of the applicant power of attorney had already been filed by the two counsel. The power of attorney is in favour of the same learned counsel who have filed the power of attorney and had already inspected the file, there was no reason not to mention in the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings that they had filed .The power of attorney but their names did not appear in the cause list. In any ease, I am not satisfied that there was any justification to have delayed the matter after 19-5-1980 till 25- 5-1980 when the applications were filed. The applicant bad executed registered rent deeds in favour of the landlord on 6-2-1961 Exh. P. 1 and on 10-2-1964 Exh. P.
2. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no rent has been paid to the landlord since 1964. It is long enough that the applicant tenant has used the property free of rent for no, less than 15 years and it is high, time that he vacates the premises.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the applications titled above are dis--missed, but in. The circumstances of case, the parties shall bear their own costs.