Shahbaz Baig has filed this appeal from the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt. Dated 18th of February, 1988 whereby on the application of Bashir Ahmad, respondent an order of ejectment was passed against him.
2. On 10th of January, 1987, the respondent filed an application under section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) for the eviction of the appellant from shop No. 427/7, R.A. Bazar, Lahore Cantt. On the grounds that the appellant had failed to pay rent since 18th of August, 1985 and that he intended to demolish the shop and re-erect it for which he had obtained necessary sanction from the Lahore Cantonment Board. The appellant opposed the application controverting the grounds set up by the respondent and raising a plea that the application was not maintainable as the same had been filed merely to harass him.
3. The Rent Controller framed the following issues:-- (i)Whether the present petition is not tenable ? OPR.
(ii)Whether the respondent is a rent defaulter ? OPP.
(iii)Whether the petitioner wants to re-construct the suit property after demolishing the same ?
OPP.
(iv)Relief.
4. The respondent in the affirmative examined two witnesses including Shabbir Ahmad PW.2, his son and attorney. No evidence was adduced in rebuttal by the appellant in spite of having been granted adjournments for this purpose. In the result, the evidence of the respondent was believed and finding all the issues against the appellant, the order of ejectment was passed against him on 1.8th of February, 1988.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has tiled this appeal.
6. I have perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties. The two witnesses produced by the respondent deposed that the appellant was a defaulter in the payment of rent and also that the respondent had obtained sanction from the Lahore Cantonment Board for the demolition of the shop and its re-erection. As pointed out above, the appellant failed to examine himself or lead any other evidence in rebuttal. It is contended on behalf of the appellant by his learned counsel that he was not granted sufficient opportunity to produce his evidence. This contention is unfounded. The respondent closed his evidence on 11th of November, 1987. This application was fixed for the evidence of the appellant on 3rd of December, 1987. On this date, the case could not be taken up on account of a local holiday. 1t came up for hearing on 9th of December, 1987. Counsel for the parties were present. However, the evidence of the appellant was not present. He was directed to produce evidence on 23rd of December, 1987 at all costs. On this date, since counsel for the respondent was busy in the High Court, the case was adjourned to 13th of January, 1988 for the evidence of the appellant. On this date also, on the request of the parties, the case was adjourned to 27th of January, 1988 for the evidence of the appellant. Again an adjournment was sought by counsel for the parties and therefore the case was adjourned to 3rd of February, 1988. On this date, counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant had come but had left. He prayed for an adjournment for a day which was granted and the case was adjourned to 4th of February, 1988 for the evidence of the appellant. On this date again, counsel for the appellant requested for an adjournment. The case was fixed on 10th of February 1988 for the evidence of the appellant. On 10th of February, 1988, the evidence of the appellant was partially present but since his counsel was not present, the case was adjourned to 18th of February, 1988, for his evidence with a clarification that no further adjournment would be given to him. On 18th of February 1988, counsel for the appellant made a statement that the appellant had come on that day but had left. Since he or his evidence was not present and he had been given many adjournments, his evidence was closed and in view of the evidence of the respondent, his application for ejectment was decided in his favour and against the appellant.
7. It is manifest from the above ,resume that many adjournments were granted to the appellant to produce his evidence in rebuttal but he persistently failed to do so. In view of his conduct before the Rent Controller, he obviously does not deserve any indulgence.
8. In the result I maintain the impugned order of ejectment against the appellant and dismiss this appeal. The appellant is, however, given a period of three months from today to vacate the shop and deliver its possession to the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
H.B.T./S-518/L