1. ' This writ petition is directed against the order dated 13th May, 1981 of the Rent Controller whereby he closed the evidence of the petitioners in an ejectment application filed against them by respondents 2 to 5.
2. The facts of the case are that on 7th February, 1981 respondents 2 to 5 concluded their evidence and the case was adjourned for submission of their documentary evidence and for evidence of the petitioners for 16th February, 1981. On the said date the respondents submitted their documentary evidence, but the evidence of the petitioners was not present. The case was, therefore, adjourned to 28th February, 1981 on the condition of petitioners paying a sum of Rs, 30 as costs. On 28th February, 1981, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 9th March, 1981, but it was specifically stated in the order that next date was for evidence of petitioners. On that date also, the evidence of the petitioners was not available and the case was adjourned to 13th April, 1981. On 13th April, 1981 no evidence of the petitioners was present and the case was adjourned to 13th May, 1981 specifically stating that it would be the last opportunity for the petitioners to produce their evidence. However on 9th May, 1981 (only four days before the said date of hearing) the petitioners submitted an application for summoning three witnesses and for permission to deposit their expenses, i,e, diet money and process fee. The Rent Controller permitted them to do so on their own responsibility. Accordingly a sum of Rs, 65 was deposited on the same date.
2. ' On 13th May, 1981, when the case was called at 9-50 a. m. Only counsel for the petitioners appeared and sought time for half an hour. The case was again taken up at 11-45 a. m. And again the evidence of the petitioners was not available. The Rent Controller refused to grant further opportunity on the ground that this was the last opportunity granted. As to the application dated 9th May, 1981, the Rent Controller observed that the expenses had been deposited late and, therefore, no notice could be issued. It was specifically observed by him that no evidence of the petitioners was present. He further observed that four successive opportunities had already been granted to the petitioners to produce their witnesses but they wanted to prolong the case without any valid reason. On these grounds he closed evidence of petitioners by his order dated 13th May, 1981, and fixed the case for arguments.
3. In this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the question that having once allowed the petitioners to summon the witnesses, the Rent Controller could not have closed the evidence of petitioners and he should have set in motion the coercive machinery of law under Order XVI, C. P. C. Available to him for enforcing the attendance of the .Said witnesses.
4. ' I have considered this plea. There is no substance in it. The expenses of the witnesses were deposited on 9th May 1981. By virtue of section 16 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the Rent Controller has the same powers for summoning and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses as are available to a civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code. Order XVI, C. P. C., therefore, applies to the proceedings before Rent Controller. According to proviso to rule 1 (3) of Order XVI, C. P. C., no summons can be issued for summoning any witness unless an application is made 14 days prior to the date fixed for the hearing of the suit. In the present case, however, the expenses were deposited only 4 days before the date of hearing of the petition. The Rent Controller was, therefore, correct in holding that no summons could be issued (for service under Order XVI, rule 8, C. P. C. i,e, through serving officer of the Court). Even otherwise the Rent Controller had allowed the petitioners to deposit the expenses of the witnesses on their own responsibility. In the circumstances the only course available to the petitioners was to file an application before the Rent Controller under Order XVI, rule 7-A, for Dasti summons so that they may serve the same on the witnesses as if they themselves were the serving officers. The order dated 9th May, 1981 also contemplated that they could take the summons and serve them upon the said witnesses themselves. It, however, appears that the petitioners never filed any application nor they went forward themselves to get the Dasti summons from the Rent Controller.
5. ' Learned counsel then submitted that as other witnesses were available, the Rent Controller should have recorded their statements. He has placed on record affidavits of four persons deposing that they had gone to Court of Rent Controller on 13th May, 1981 to give evidence but their statements had not been recorded. The said affidavits do-not disclose at what time the said persons were present in the Court of Rent Controller. The case had been taken up at 11-45 a. m. And if they came to the Court after the said time, then that was of no consequence. At any rate the best evidence in this regard was the affidavit by the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioners in the Court of Rent Controller. The said counsel has not come forward with any such affidavit. In the absence of that evidence, no reliance can be placed on these affidavits. There is thus nothing to show that specific observation of Rent Controller that no witness of the petitioners was present was incorrect. There is presumption of regularity of officials acts attached to order of the Rent Controller and it has got to be accepted as true.
6. ' Faced with this situation, learned counsel has submitted that at any rate petitioner No, 1 was present and at least his statement should have been recorded. In support of said plea he submits that petitioners had alleged in the writ petition that petitioner No, 1 was present and they had supported the averment by an affidavit. This plea is also without any substance. Here also the best evidence on the point was the affidavit of counsel who appeared for petitioners before Rent Controller. In the absence of that no reliance can be placed on the bare averments in the writ petition. Furthermore in the impugned order, the presence only of the counsel of petitioners- respondents is recorded and it is not recorded that any of the petitioners was present along with him. Furthermore, it was thrice recorded in specific terms in the impugned order that no evidence of petitioners-respondents was present. This included any one of the petitioners who could appear as a competent witness on his own behalf. It is not recorded in the said order that petitioner No, I was present and no statement is recorded to have been made by counsel for petitioner No, 1 is present before Rent Controller and at least his evidence should be recorded. On the other hand, in the said order, the said counsel is shown to have made a prayer for further adjournment for summoning witnesses for which expenses had been deposited. If petitioner No, 1 was present then, without any doubt, the learned counsel would have made the prayer for recording of his evidence.
7. Absence of any description of any such prayer on the part of said counsel proves that petitioner No, 1 was not present there on that day.
8. Four adjournments had already been granted to the petitioners and even on the fifth one, the petitioners had neither appeared themselves nor brought the evidence. In view of the conduct of the petitioners in prolonging the case unnecessarily, the Rent Controller was within -the bounds of his power in closing the evidence of the petitioners.
9. ' In view of this, there is no force in this writ petition which is dismissed with costs.
10. Petition.Dismissed.