' Being aggrieved by the order, dated 29th April, 1982 passed by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, the appetlant has filed this appeal.
2. Brief facts of this case are that respondent No, 1 is the landlord of the House No, 4/613 Drigh Colony, Karachi and the respondent No, 2 is his tenant in respect of the first floor or a monthly rent of Rs, 200. The respondent No, 1 since before letting out the rented premises to the respondent No, 2 till now has been residing with his father and his wife and children comprising grown up sons and daughters as a joint family in a quarter allotted to him in the University Campus. The appellant Jehangir is the sub-tenant of the respondent No,
2. The rent application was filed on the grounds that (1) the premises was sub-let, (2) the property was damaged and (3) the premises are required bona fidely in good faith for the personal use and occupation of the landlord.
3. The appellant and respondent No, 2 who were impleaded in the Rent Application were served with the statutory notice but they remained absent, consequently on 26th April, 1982 an ex parte order was passed. They failed to file the written statement within 15 days according to the provisions of section 19 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Against the ex parte order the appellant Jehangir went in appeal in the High Court and the appeal was dismissed in limine.
Thereafter the rent application proceeded, as ex parte. The landlord/respondent No, 1 filed his affidavit in ex parte proof touching all the points in respect of the rent application i. e. Of subletting, damage and bona fide requirement of the premises in question. The Rent Application was allowed with costs. In the result this appeal has been filed by Jehangir, opponent No, 2 in the Rent Application.
4. This appeal has been argued by Mr. Mumtaz Hussain Shah Advocate on behalf of the appellant and by Mr. M. Habibur Rehman Khan Afridi Advocate on behalf of the respondent No, 1.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he made an application for adjournment as the appellant was not feeling well on 26th April, 1982 which was not granted.
Thereafter finally the ex parte order was passed on 29th April, 1982 against the appellant. His main contention is that the application for adjournment ought to have been granted or at least the reasons ought to have been assigned for rejecting the adjournment application. It is to be noted that against that order he went in appeal before the High Court and the same was dismissed in limine. The learned Rent Controller was under the impression that he had no power to rescind his own order as contemplated under section 19 (2). The learned counsel for the appellant has referred me to the Judgment of this Court Masharkh uddin v. Ali Haider (1). It has observed by his Lordship Mr. Abdul Hayee Kuresbi, C. J. While deciding the issue in question as under :- "In any case the principles of natural justice which are deeply embedded in the sub-stratum of legislation in spite of not being vividly expressed, would also support the proposition that before a person losses his right to defend a cause, it is to be shown that he has notice about the pendency of a cause in a competent tribunal."
It is to be noted that in the above-cited case the matter was by consent remanded to the lower Court. The question that the Rent Controller cannot rescind his own order in my humble opinion is a statutory A obligation and the principles of natural justice are hardly applicable. For this, I hold that the above-said authority does not apply in the instant case.
6. In reply the learned counsel for the respondent has argued with a consideration force that at the initial stage the litigation between the parties was pending before Martial Law Courts wherein they had compromised and the premises was undertaken to be vacated on or about 23rd March, 1978.
The tenants, however, did not vacate the premises in the result the rent application was filed by the landlord. The behaviour of the tenants after the rent application was filed was to the extent of delaying tactics and absenting themselves till the ex parte order was passed. The disease due to which the adjournment application was made, is not such to prevent the appellant from appearing in the Court. He did appear on 19th April, 1982, but learnt that the case was adjourned. It shows that the cause shown in the adjournment application was a false one.
7. I have given anxious consideration to the circumstances and the evidence in this appeal and have come to the conclusion that tenants employed delaying tactics by deliberately absenting themselves till the ex parte order was passed. In the result I dismiss this appeal. However a period of thirty days is given to the appellant to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord.
(1) 1982 CLC 644