1. ' The respondent had filed application for ejectment against the appellant. Order for deposit of rent was passed under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 directing the appellant to deposit future rents before 15th of every month.
2. ' It is admitted position that the rent for the month of July, 1972 could not be deposited by the appellant before 15-8-1972 and again rent for the month of October, 1972 could not be deposited by the appellant before 15-11-1972 and was actually deposited on :4-11-1972. The respondent had filed application under section 13(6) for striking off the defence of the appellant on 24-11-1972. The appellant filed his objections in September, 1973 and stated that he was suffering from dysentery on 14-8-1972 and 15-8-1972 and, therefore, he deposited the rent on 16-8-97 and further that he fell ill from 13-11-1972 to 23-11-1972 and, therefore, deposited the rent on 24-11-1972. The appellant stated that he had always been regular and vigilant in depositing the rent. The medical certificates filed alongwith these objections read as under :- "Certified that Mr. Mansif Khan was ill in following date and his Prescription No, 1870, dated 14-8-1972 to 15-8-1972 total two days he was suffering from dysentry."
3. ' This certificate does not bear the exact date of signature. It was issued on the letterhead of Awami Clinic which shows Dr. S. Rahman and Lady Dr. Ruqaiya Khatoon as the doctors of that clinic.
4. Second certificate was again issued by the same clinic without any date and it says as under :- "Certified that Mr. Mansif Khan was ill in following date his Prescript WI No, 4012, date 13-11-1072 to 23-11-1972 total eleven days he was suffering from Malaria."
5. ' On 22-5-1975 the appellant applied for summoning Dr. S. Rehman for evidence. The same was granted on 22-5-1975 and process was issued. On 8-7-1975 the appellant filed application showing that Dr. S. Rahman had left for Bangladesh and that he wanted to examine his Office Superintendent or compounder. Summons were issued for 24-7-1975 in that respect. On 24-7-1975 the parties were present before the Court, however, the appellant's counsel was not present.
6. Summons to the Medical Superintendent and/or to Medical Assistant were returned to the Court with the endorsement that doctor had gone out of Pakistan and old record was not available. The case was put off to 28-7-1975 for arguments as no evidence was led by the appellant. On 28-7- 1975 the appellant's counsel again remained absent and the arguments of respondent's counsel were heard. The appellant had appeared in that Court late on that date. On 31-7-1975 the order was not ready and, therefore, it was put off to 8-8-1975. On 8-8-1975 the appellant and his counsel were again called absent and order was passed and announced in open Court directing the appellant to hand over vacant possession.
7. ' Mr. Ashraf Kazi, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that proper opportunity to his client had not been provided to prove that he was prevented from sufficient cause from depositing the amount of rent in Court within the time allowed. The learned counsel submitted that summons should have been issued again to the Medical Superintendent or Medical Assistant of Awami Clinic to come and prove the medical certificates issued by them. The learned counsel submitted that the Courts below had committed mistake of ignoring the medical certificates.
8. ' I am afraid that the contentions of the learned counsel are not justified. In the first instance I find that the Rent Controller granted the application for summoning Dr S. Rahman on 22-5-1975 in spite of the fact that the matter had already been posted for orders on 16-5-1975. This was, therefore, a proper opportunity provided to the appellant to prove his case. The appellant was interested in examining Dr. S. Rahman but that doctor was found to have gone to Bangladesh and thereafter the Rent Controller again complied with the wishes of the appellant by summoning either the Office Superintendent or the Compounder or Medical Assistant. The endorsement of Awami Clinic on the summons is that old record was not available and the doctor had gone out of Pakistan. Important thing to note is that on 24-7-1975 the matter was fixed for hearing. The appellant's counsel was absent from the Court although the appellant was present and the appellant must have informed the counsel of the appellant as to what happened on that date. The matter had been posted for arguments on 28-7-1975 and in between 24-7-1975 and 28-7-1975 the appellant or his counsel did not take any steps to move the Rent Controller for issuing of fresh summons to Awami Clinic or any parties. The order was eventually passed on 8-8-1975 but between 24-7-1975 and 8-8-1975 the appellant's counsel has remained absent and no effort has been made during this time for securing the issue of any summons to Awami Clinic, .Mr. Ashraf Kazi stated that since the matter had been put off for arguments, therefore, the appellant could not move for service of any summons. I fail to see any force in this argument and I am quite sure that if proper cause was shown the Rent Controller would have issued the summons as the Rent Controller had already twice complied with the request of the appellant and it was in fact on account of absence of the appellant's counsel on 24-7-1975 to 28-7-1975 that the matter had been posted for arguments and arguments were heard. Therefore, In these circumstances it cannot be said that the proper opportunity had not been provided to the! Appellant to prove his case.
9. ' In any case two medical certificates produced by the appellant do not show on their face that the appellant was so seriously ill that he could not move out. One is certificate of dysentry of two days and every one knows that dysentry is not such a disabling disease that a person cannot attend to any other function. The second certificate again does not show that the appellant was completely bed-ridden and that he could not attend to any other matter. The doctor who issued these certificates had gone out to Bangladesh and, therefore, the appellant could not examine him. In any case the doctor who had signed these certificates could at the most say that he had issued these certificates and that contents of the same were correct. He could not improve upon these certificates and could not have stated that the appellant was in such a serious state of illness on these occasions that he could not get the amount of rent deposited in Court. It is, therefore, obvious that these two certificates even if they are accepted as completely proved do not make out a case that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause from depositing the rent in Court in time. Mr. Nabi Raza also brought my attention to the fact that the appellant had not shown in his objections that he had no other 'person in the family to attend to his work who could be sent for deposit of rent. This again is a lapse on the part of the appellant and shows that the appellant has not been able to explain that he was really prevented from depositing the rent amount in Court on both occasions.
10. The non-deposit of rent in time having been clearly admitted for both occasions it was for the appellant to substantially establish that he had not been able to deposit the rent in Court in time from the circumstances which may be beyond his control. Such evidence has not been led and, therefore, this appeal is dismissed. However, since this is a commercial premises and the appellant would be put to a great deal of difficulty in securing alternate accommodation, therefore, I grant six months time to the appellant .To vacate the shop premises provided he continues to deposit the rent in Court in compliance with the orders of the Rent Controller.