' Ejectment Case No, 3692 of 1976 was filed on 31.8-1976 by the respondent/landlord for the eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground of personal requirement and default. Written statement was filed resisting the ejectment application. On 10-10-1977 a tentative rent order was passed by the learned Rent Controller. There was no dispute about the period and rate of rent. An application, dated 18-11-1981 under section 16 (2) of the 1979 Rent Ordinance was filed by the respondent for striking off the defence of the appellant. The order sheet of the Rent Controller's file shows that opportunities were given to the appellant to produce the receipts about the deposits as it was contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no default. However, in spite of the opportunities being granted the receipts were not produced and on the basis of the Nazir's report and the averments made in the application of the respondent, by order, dated 28-12-1982, the defence of the appellant was struck off. Thereafter an application dated 28-3-1982 under Order XLVII, rule 1 read with section 151, C. P. C was filed for review of the order dated 28-2-1982 striking off the defence of the appellant on the ground that receipts were available with the appellant but the same could not be produced by him earlier as the said receipts were in possession of an officer, who had been on tour and was not available. Copies of certain receipts were attached to the application. By order dated 13-7-1982, the application for review of the ejectment order was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller holding that there was apparently no mistake or error in the dated 28-2-1982 striking off the defence of the appellant and moreover, order under section 16
(2) striking off the defence or the appellant was a final order and the Court had no power to review of recall the same. Being aggrieved, with the orders, dated 28.2-1982 and 13-7-1982 of the Rent Controller, the appellant has approached this Court in this first rent appeal. I have heard Mr. Attaur Rehman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. K. M. Idris, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. In this Court the appellant has produced some receipts, photostat copies of which had been filed alongwith the application for review of the ejectment order. In the receipts now filed before this Court certain corrections have been made in all the receipts and the correct rent case number, ledger number and other entries have been incorporated. It is averred on behalf of the appellant that these corrections have been made by the Nazir of the civil Courts at a later stage, although, on a question from the Court, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that no application had been Made to the Nazir of the civil Courts for checking of the record and making the corrections.
The position that emerges from the facts of this case is as follows :-
(i) By or before 28-2-1982, when the first order was passed by the Rent Controller striking off the defence of the appellant and ordering his ejectment, no receipts were produced before the Rent Controller in spite of opportunities granted to the appellant and in the circumstances the Rent Controller was constrained to pass the order dated 28-2-1982 striking off the defence of the appellant.
(ii) With the application for review, photostat copies of certain receipts were tiled but most of the receipts showed a different case number and in some receipts different names and different ledger numbers are mentioned. An observation to that effect had been made by the Rent Controller in his order dated 13-7-1982.
(iii) Reliance is now placed in first rent appeal on certain receipts in which various corrections, additions and alterations have been made. Without the corrections/additions/alterations, photostat copies of these receipts had been produced alongwith the review application filed by the appellant before the Rent Controller.
(iv) The corrections/additions/alterations are alleged to have been made after the disposal of the case by the Rent Controller by the Nazir of the civil Courts without any application moved on behalf of the appellant.
3. I am not inclined to set aside the two orders, dated 28-2-1982 and 13-7-1982 passed by the Rent Controller in the circumstances of this case. As observed earlier, before 28-2-1982 no receipts were produced and before 13-7-1982 photostat copies of certain receipts were produced, most of which receipts had shown that they did not relate to the B case in question. On a mere allegation at this stage that although those receipts had shown that the amounts had been deposited in other cases, the said amounts were in fact deposited in the case in question cannot be reopened now.
Various opportunities had been granted to the appellant but no benefit was taken by the appellant. I find no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in either of the two orders or the Rent Controller.
4. As a result F. R. A. 865/1982 is dismissed with costs. Time is, however, granted to the appellant till 31-12-1983 to vacate the premises.