1. ' This Second Appeal has been filed under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) and seeks to challenge the judgment dated 8th October, 1978 of the First Additional District Judge, Hyderabad in Civil Appeal No, 145/1977, dismissing the same and confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Tando Allahyar dated 14th April, 1977.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under :- ' Respondent, Rehmatullah filed application under section 13 of the Ordinance on 2nd February, 1970 in the Court of Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Tando Allahyar stating that he had purchased a portion of plot bearing No, C/1010, measuring about 2207 sq. Feet from the Settlement Department and had constructed a shop thereon which was rented out to the appellant on 9th May, 1967 at a monthly rent of Rs,
20. The appellant defaulted in the payment of rent and proceedings were - taken before the Conciliation Court but the same were held to be void by the District Judge. The respondent then served notice on the appellant and due to his persistent failure to pay rent, filed application under section 13 of the Ordinance for his ejectment on 2nd February, 1970. The application was admitted and summons were ordered to be issued to the appellant for settlement of issues on 21st February, 1970. On that day, one Muhammad Hanif, brother of the opponent/appellant made an application for adjournment on the ground that his brother, Ramzan, who had gone to the Punjab had fallen ill there and, therefore, the matter be adjourned. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 17th March, 1970 when again the same Muhammad Hanif, brother of Muhammad Ramzan made application for adjournment on the ground that Muhammad Ramzan was lying ill at Gujranwala and that he had sent intimation to him about the fling of the rent application against him. The Controller adjourned the proceedings to 2nd April, 1970. On that date, the Court diary shows that the parties were present and the matter was adjourned to 17th April, 1970 on which date again while the applicant/respondent and his Advocate were present, the opponent/appellant was absent and ex parte proceedings were ordered and the matter put off to 27th April, 1970 for ex parte proof. On 27th April, 1970 applicant/respondent filed affidavit of ex parte proof in support of his application which was allowed and the order of ejectment was passed by the learned Rent Controller directing the appellant to deliver vacant possession of the shop to the respondent.
3. ' Against the aforesaid ex parte order of ejectment, the appellant preferred first appeal before the District Judge on 27th April, 1970, which too, however, was dismissed. He then filed Second Appeal before the High Court which was accepted and the matter was remanded for proceedings to the Rent Controller.
4. ' On 4th February, 1976 on receipt of the R & P from the appellate Court with copy of the order of the High Court in Second Appeal No, 464/1970, the learned Rent Controller issued Court notice to the parties. On 27th February, 1976 both the parties appeared before the Court on the application for adjournment, filed by appellant Muhammad Ramzan, the proceedings were adjourned to 11th March, 1976 for filing of written statement. Again on 11th March, 1976 the proceedings were adjourned on application made on behalf of the opponent/appellant. On 13th March, 1976 again an application for adjournment was made for grant of time to file written statement but the learned Rent Controller observed that the matter was proceeding since the year 1970 and it appeared to him that the appellant was avoiding filing written statement. He, how-eve, granted adjournment on the appellant paying Rs, 30 as costs. On the adjourned date, namely, 20th March, 1976 the Advocate for the appellant made an application under Order XLVII, rule 1 of C. P. C. For review of the order imposing costs, of which notice was ordered to be issued to the other side. On 2nd April, 1976, the arguments were heard and the matter put off for orders on the application to 3rd April, 1976 on which date the application for review was rejected and the proceedings were adjourned to 10th April, 1976.
5. ' The appellant filed written statement on 16th April, 1976 in which he denied relationship of landlord and tenant and raised the plea that no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was served upon him although he had been in occupation of premises in dispute before 1958. He denied that the shop had been constructed by the respondent or that he had taken it on rent from the respondent op 9th May, 1967.
6. ' The learned Rent Controller settled the preliminary issue on 17th April, 1976 "As to whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ?".
7. ' On 7th May, 1976, an application was filed on behalf of the opponent/ appellant for permission to produce order of Union Committee No, D, Tando Allahyar. On 21st May, 1976 the deposition of Rehmatullah, applicant/respondent was recorded and the documents produced by him were exhibited. The side of the applicant/respondent was then closed. The proceedings continued on 30th July, 1976, on which date the matter was fixed for evidence of the opponent/appellant, but since be and his Advocate were absent, his side was closed and the matter was adjourned to 13th August, 1973 for orders.
8. ' On 24th February, 1977 again on behalf of the opponent/appellant an application under section 151 of C. P. C. Was made for recall of the applicant/respondent and his witnesses for cross- examination with a further request that the opponent/appellant be permitted to produce his evidence. The learned Rent Controlter allowed the application to the extent that the opponent was permitted to bring his witnesses and be examined in the matter and the opponent's side was opened. However, the prayer with regard to recalling the witnesses of the applicant/respondent was rejected. Such Order was passed on 2nd March, 1977.
9. ' Incidentally on 14th April, 1977 the learned Rent Controller passed the impugned order allowing the application for ejectment and directing the appellant to hand over the possession of the shop within 30 days of the order.
10. ' Against this decision of the Controller, the appellant filed First Appeal No, 145/1977, which came up before the Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same by his judgment dated 8th October, 1978. Against the aforesaid judgment the instant Second Appeal has been filed.
11. ' Mr. Matloob Hassan Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that although the plea that no notice was received under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 had been taken in the written statement and had been argued the First Appellate Court has not even referred to be the same in the impugned judgment.
12. ' A perusal of the impugned judgment would, however, show that the learned First Appellate Court considered the evidence on record and the fact that the respondent had produced the P. T. D.
13. Issued by the Settlement Department to him, genuineness of which was not disputed. There is also reference that the appellant was properly served with notice, sent to him by respondent, which was produced by the respondent. The aforesaid notice which is Exh. 35 on the record of the Rent Controller and as observed by the learned Controller bears the proper address of the disputed premises and it is apparent from perusal thereof that the appellant had rented out the shop from the respondent. There is also evidence of witnesses Akhtar All and Haji Hassan on record to show that the appellant had taken the shop on lease from the respondent. The question of service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, therefore, does not appear to arise. The learned counsel for the appellant has stressed the point that the witnesses were not cross-examined by the appellant but as a perusal of the record would show that this is a case where all the delaying tactics were made and the appellant, therefore, cannot be heard to complain of his not being given a proper opportunity to put forward his case.
14. Since the appellant had been denying relationship of landlord and tenant, on the Controller holding that such relationship did exist he could straightaway order ejectment and, therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Controller dated 14th April, 1977 and the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court confirming the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller. No case has been made out for interference by this Court at the stage of Second Appeal and the concurrent findings of the Controller and the First Appellate Court are, therefore, hereby confirmed and the , however, with no order as to costs. The appellant is hereby directed to band over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within 30 days of this order.