ORDER .
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- This petition arises from an ejectment proceeding which resulted in the passing of ex parte order of ejectment of the petition by the Rent Controller on 23-6-1980. He filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order which failed on 15-9-1980. There--upon, he filed an appeal on 16-9-1980 but the same was dismissed on 15-7-1981 on the ground of limitation alone though the appellate Court observed that the petitioner should have also appealed from the refusal to set aside the ex parte order. The petitioner then challenged the order of his ejectment through a writ petition but the same, to, was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 10-4-1984.
2. It is argued, firstly, that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties and as such the Controller, by an erroneous finding on that jurisdictional fact could not assume jurisdiction and, secondly, that the appeal could not be held to be the-barred because certified copy of the Controller's order, dated 23-6-1980, for which an application had been made on 23-6- 1980, had not been furnished. Both the contentions, we find, had been raised before the High Court and dealt with at some length before rejecting the same. We are satisfied that no case had been made out for issue of a writ by the High Court. This petition for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.