' The facts leading up to this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant is the tenant of e respondent in the premises on the ground floor of the house situated on Plot No, 8/8-1I-F, Karachi, on a monthly rent of Rs, 225. The respondent alongwith his family lives on the 1st Floor of the same house. The respondent is an old man and his son is suffering from hemophilia and they are advised medically not to climb up the stairs or else they will loose their lives. The respondent, therefore, filed a Rent Case No, 406 of 1979, in the Court of the Vth Rent Controller, Karachi against the appellant for his eviction on the ground of his bona fide personal use of the house in question. The learned Rent Controller served the appellant with notice and his Advocate Mr. M. Moazzam Baig filed power on his behalf on 22-4-1979. He obtained a number of adjournments for filing written statement and the matter was finally adjourned to 16-8-1979 on which date the following order was passed:- "Time allowed as a last chance. Written statement to be filed on or before the next date of hearing.
Put off to 2-9-1979."
' On 2-9-1979, neither the appellant nor his Advocate appeared in the Court and the learned Rent Controller having waited up to 2-00 p. m. Passed an order to proceed with the matter ex parte against the appellant.
2. On 2-9-1979, the appellant proceeded to India without filing the written statement or having contacted his Advocate to obtain time. An intimation with regard to the matter to proceed ex parte against the appellant was sent to him at his address by a registered post and his mother received the same. She kept the same till the appellant returned from India on 11-10-1979, when she gave the letter to him. In the meantime the respondent's Advocate submitted ex parte proof in the shape of his filing affidavit and an ex parte order of eviction from the premises was passed against the appellant on 15-10-1979. The appellant on 21-10-1979 filed an application under Order IX, rule 13 read with section 151, C. P. C. For setting aside the ex parte order of eviction passed against him on 15-10- 1979. Affidavits and counter-affidavits were filed in support of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. The appellant contended that he could not file the written statement as he was out of country in India on account of his pressing demand there urgently. He was contradicted by the respondent in his contentions. The learned Rent Controller dismissed his application on 23-2-1980.
This appeal is directed against the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controller on 15- 10-1979 directing eviction of the appellant from the premises in question and passing on the vacant possession to the respondent within 30 days of the order and the order dated 23-2-1980 dismissing the application for setting aside the above-mentioned ex parte order of eviction.
3. I have heard Mr. Shahenshah Hussain, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Rehman Memon, for the respondent. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that he failed to file the written {{BLURR}} statement on 2-9-1979,,m,hc had urgently wiz) coindininn that date and the failure on his part was not reasonal*AVAISe-4;ilnsitle en contended op,i behalf , of the respondent4hat Aei. hadAlreatly obtained much time for filing the writtojt,.:Atatement *n4,fAhat;,he ,gotijsk delay, his departure by oue day or even by few bpuraitpi.Ftle:41ip written Atesnent And that even after coming, bacitt PPLAn10497A.-Tboirsjopti ciyera4, mattfr though his mother handed. Own! The, intimation) of w,v7pgrodivideriAnying:, passed against him imutediatelYdagyk:Oigerpw he was gqiltry ofigrosapegligenoo and he,e010 not plead 4,,..
Reasonable muse. .,,.What ,Ii 4pdblkoR ,,the,. Mord that t e appellant has filed his owpaffldayit901,0,0;;;-.)Sily nyiAtAr4Ais4 Badar Jehan Begum. His orx affidavit shows,, that he had to go urgently to India to see his seriously ailing Cousin kiut.the5,.itfidWii ' 06iiAtil -Oh*: is silent about such pressing '40,Sild of thO;Nippellalitiii India,<0i*ititt* the serious illness of his cousin.''There is no other ' eVidenee-iiibilueeklii 'support of such contention except that the appellant has produced his passport to show that he was lit Of station in India from 2-9-1979 till 11-10-1979. What is evident from the material on the record-is that the Advocate of the appellant had obtained sufficient time for filing the ;written statement at least for five dates of hearings, when the matterviryas adjourned to 16-8-1979 on which date final order was passed to file the Vt/i4ten statement on or before 2-9- 1979. The appellant could file the writted- Statement' .'before 2-9-1979 or even on 2-9-1979 before leaving);:for--india, had 1e tteetwOrtful to look after the proceedings of his case. He could, even after coming back on 11-10-1979 and having been intimated by his mother likboutexheintimAtion of the ex parte proceedings contact his Advocate, arid'indIeriiii"'apiilteation to the Court for Setting 'Mick' the ex parte ' order -,btif,be : clidie .,te ivai4citilL I the , order for eviction was passed on 15-10- 1979i.Mbereaftec))alm:Aftwiwaiting for six days he moved an application fp )4RttpcfpickNip,:ft of eviction negligent-ill_ dealing wig], his casedbiglett8K;19A9 * 1.13 .9tp4!,:,.Fsalises passed against him. His coudu J tni eit ikys.yurTIN. Edmis grossly Ordinatlee; )1979, reads as follows ,-,,. i..:oe icm r.:E-,ne ot bil-,,i'q fixed "VVhere4111,..V0 day 4,nd itlthp.R14cptuR.t.Prespondent,:.Tsi file, written reply, it uttfound that PIC r:PoRt,,,icr,cf P4,440e,* seci!, ;Out the respondent has failed to fife his reply wIthout,any*Asonable,ex914:tbe. Controller may, proceed to make an ex parte, order and after such order has been made the Controller shall have no power to .rei4i441 iph order."
The circumstances of the present case in the light of the Above-mentioned provision make it very clear that the appellant had nO. Reasonable excuse for his failure to file the written statement on '2=9-1979. He has failed to prove by sufficient and satisfactory evideiee461the effect that he.Was.Tifgently called to see his ailing cousin in Indin..r..Byen his own mother is silent in that respect in her affidavit. He has 'Mid failed to produce any other evidence in that respebtit?i4adit been so, he produce the letters or telegrams or even other ..Material to show that , his cOlaill Y.4041,AllijAi.Kdia. He could havefiled the written statement betorellaYingi-,fokJ04ist ukciauld have even moved an application to the Court after his return to avoid the ex parte Order of eviction against him which was pastled.,o,4,5;-illA-4A7$f iif he had taken a slightest care and 14,40,91Aft3 a aefu 4:!-- - -about his case.
The material:141d, the circumstances Au tg.09o..,,,,A pie, make it very clear that itap,#pPelianthad no:aufficieufennse,09 ,e0S axasmab1e excuse for having f444. To file the written stateinept' n ,2-91 9. What I further A find that , the 4reason for the .Persona. Ned qtthc respondent shown in his application filed before the learned Ae:ntli , , ply,c,b,was the old age of the {{BLURR}} respondent and, therefore, his infirmity and illness of his son and their inability to climb over the stairs and to go to the 1st floor of the house where he was living. His contention in that respect has not only been supported by the affidavit but has also not been controverted on account of the failure of the appellant to file written statement, on account of hi gross negligence. I would, therefore, find the personal need of the respondent bona fide as well, the claim which has not been challenged on behalf of the appellant. There is no other issue involved for adjudication in this appeal. The impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controller on 15-10-1979 and 23-2-1980, therefore, do not call for interference.
4. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs. However, the appellant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent within a period of two months, from the date of this judgment.