By filing this petition, the petitioner has put a challenge to order , dated 02.03.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore whereby her right to produce evidence in the Ejectment Petition filed .by her was closed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that while passing the impugned order the learned Special Judge
(Rent) foiled to consider that the petitioner being Overseas Pakistani could not enter the witness box in person; that application of the petitioner for recording of her statement through E-Court was accepted and she was directed to arrange for DVD and to get time from E-Court but without giving any schedule in that regard, penal order was passed against her; that while passing the impugned order the learned Special Judge (Rent) failed to consider that no provision regarding closure of evidence of a party exists in the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 (the Act, 2009). Relies on Muhammad Yousaf and 7 others v . Falak Sher Khan and 7 others (2018 CLC Note 133).
3. On the other hand, learned counsel representing Respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that lethargic attitude on the part of the petitioner is evident from the fact that the Ejectment Petition was filed in the year 201.6 and Issues were framed on 27.09.2017 whereafter the petitioner was given seven opportunities to complete her evidence but instead of producing evidence she filed application for recording of her evidence through E-Court and after acceptance of the said application she was again given three opportunities but she failed to produce evidence, thus, the, learned Special Judge (Rent) was left with no option but to pass the impugned order; that according to Section 25(3) of the Act, 2009 only two opportunities can be granted to a party to produce evidence but while showing maximum leniency the learned Special Judge (Rent) provided almost 10 opportunities to the petitioner but she failed to produce evidence; that under Section 27 of the Act, 2009, four months' time has been fixed for decision of the Ejectment Petition but due to delaying tactics played by the petitioner the Ejectment Petition has not reached its logical conclusion and that the impugned order being interim in nature cannot be challenged in these proceedings.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, annexed with this petition.
5. A perusal of the order sheet of the learned Special Judge (Rent), placed on record by Respondents No. 1 & 2 alongwith their written statement, shows that the Ejectment Petition was filed on 29.04.2016 and the Issues were framed on 27.09.2017 whereafter the matter remained fixed for recording of evidence but despite availing numerous opportunities the petitioner failed to produce evidence compelling the learned Special Judge (Rent) to pass the impugned order .
6. It is very interesting to note that being ex-parte the petitioner filed application for recording of her evidence through E-Court which was accepted by the learned Special Judge (Rent) but later on her counsel made statement that the petitioner was not ready to avail the facility of E-evidence which fact speaks volumes about lethargic attitude of the petitioner .
7. Admittedly , the impugned order is interim in nature which has been declared non-challengeable as per Section 28(2) of the Act, 2009 and in case the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is exercised to set aside the same the very purpose to exclude jurisdiction of learned Appellate Court to take care of an interim order passed by learned Special Judge (Rent), would become redundant.
8. Now coming to the case-law , cited by learned counsel for the petitioner , I am of the view that the same is of no help to her for the reason that the said case having been decided by a learned Single Bench of this Court has no binding force. Further , according to Section 26(1) a Rent Tribunal enjoys powe rs of Civil Court in respect of attendance and production of evidence, thus, its powers to close right I"' of a party cannot be abridged.
9. For what has been noted above, I see no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed .