1. ' This case was partly heard by me on 12th May, 1982 and thereafter it was adjourned from time to time to enable the parties to file a compromise which they were stated to be negotiating. No compromise is filed but an application for adjournment has been sent by the counsel of the respondent on the ground that he is unable to attend the Court on account of his illness. This case is part-heard since May, 1982 and large number of adjournments were granted since then. I am therefore not inclined to adjourn this case today. The application for adjournment moved by the respondent's counsel is accordingly rejected.
2. ' I have heard Mr. A. M. Mukarim the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel contends that the order of ejectment passed against the appellant is a nullity in the eye of law as appellant 2 was a minor at the time the ejectment application was instituted before the Rent Controller and no guardian ad litem was appointed to represent him. According to the learned counsel the appellant 2 was born on 15th March, 1953 and therefore when the rent application was filed before the Rent Controller he was only 13 years of age. In the rent application the appellant 2 was shown as a major but in the objections filed before the Controller by appellant 1 it was claimed that appellant 2 is a minor. However, this plea was not apparently pressed before the Controller was admittedly when evidence was recorded in the case and the preliminary issue was framed the appellant 2 had become a major. The tenancy in favour of appellants 1 and 2 is a joint tenancy as they claim to be the heir of deceased Wilayat Ali, the original tenant of the premises. The appellant No, 2 was all along represented by appellant No, 1 before the Rent Controller and no prejudice appears to have been caused to appellant No, 2 by non-appointment of the guardian in the case initially. In fact appellant No, 2 alongwith the others had filed first rent appeal against the order of Rent Controller after she became major and no grievance was made that she was not properly represented before the Rent Controller or that any prejudice was caused to her by non- appointment of guardian ad litem. In these circumstances I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for appellant. On merits of the case the learned counsel was unable to advance any contention. Both the Courts below found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and since the application was filed on the ground of default and the appellants had not asserted that they ever paid or tendered any rent to the respondents the Rent Controller rightly ordered eviction of appellant from the premises without taking further proceedings in the case. No other point is raised. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but as the respondents have not contested the appeal there will be no order as to costs. The appellants are allowed two months' time to vacate the premises.