' This appeal by the United Bank Limited etc. Has arisen from the order, date 18-4-1998 of the learned Additional Controller of Rents, Peshawar Cantonment which is worded thus:-- ' "Petitioner with his counsel present. Ex parte evidence is recorded. The petitioner has filed an ejectment petition on the grounds of default. Respondent did not turn up despite service. He was proceeded ex parte. As there is nothing in rebuttal, therefore, on the basis of statement of petitioner, I hereby accept the ejectment petition and pass the ejectment order against the respondent. Respondent is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the petitioner within 30 days of this order, failing which the order, will be executed through the Court of Law. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record. Announced."
2. The petition, in which the above order was passed, was filed on 27-8-1996 by the respondent Syed Mansoor Ahmad Shah for eviction of the appellants from the premises called 27 Saddar Road Peshawar Cantt: mainly on the ground of personal need though it was also alleged that rent was outstanding since 1-7-1995. The issues were framed on 19-6-1997 and the appellants were placed ex parte on 2-12-1997 but the ex parte proceedings were set aside on 17-12-1997 on payment of a sum of Rs,200 as costs. However, the appellant were again placed ex parte on 18-3-1998, their defence was struck off and ultimately the impugned order was passed on 18-4-1998.
3. The impugned order as assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the following grounds:--
(i) The appellants were placed ex parte and their defence was also struck off on 18-3-1998. The order, dated 18-3-1998, which being an interlocutory order was not appealable and having merged into the impugned order was open to scrutiny, was illegal and void ab initio as it was passed on a date which was not fixed for hearing. The case was adjourned on 21-2-1998 to 10-3-1998 for evidence of the petitioner by the learned Additional Controller of Rents but on that date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 18-3-1998 by the Reader. Reliance was placed on PLD 1992 Azad J&K 7; 1996 PLR 752; 1995 SCM R 218; 1993 CLC 926 and 1983 SCM R 1092.
(ii) Law favours decisions on merits as held in 1997 CLC 761.
(iii) The defence of the appellants was struck off without hearing them. The procedure adopted by the Additional Controller of Rents was arbitrary and inconsistent with the principles of natural justice. Reliance was placed on 1990 CLC 1224; 1992 CLC 1086;, 1981 CLC 1369 and 1992 M LD 801.
(iv) The impugned order was not only whimsical and mechanical but was also passed without application of mind in that while the eviction was sought on the ground of personal need it was ordered on the ground of default in payment of rent. Reference was made to 1989 MLD 2482.
4. As against the above contentions the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the appellants had not taken the proceedings seriously and the learned Additional Controller of Rents had condoned as many as six defaults committed by them and had also set aside the ex parte proceedings taken against them previously, the appellants had not cared to move an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, the Additional Controller of Rents had not ordered forthwith eviction of the appellants on 18-3-1998 but had ordered the same after holding an inquiry and recording the evidence of the landlord and the procedure adopted by him was in line with the provisions of sections 17 and 27 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act. Reliance was placed on PLD 1972 Lahore 603; 1982 SCM R 1192; 1982 CLC 2609 and 1995 CLC 516.
5. It is true that the appellants were placed ex pane and their defence as struck off on a date to which the case was adjourned by Reader on account of absence of the Presiding Officer but the appellants cannot draw any premium from this technicality and the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of his first contention do not apply to the present case because under section 27 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act the Controller of Rents is empowered to evolve his own procedure and the application of the Code of Civil Procedure is restricted to summoning of witnesses, enforcing attendance of any person and examining him on oath, compelling the discovery and production of any document and other material evidence and issuing a commission for the examination of witnesses.
6. The main and the most important question for determination is whether an inquiry was held by the learned Additional Controller of Rents under section 17 and the procedure adopted by him for the purpose on the strength of the provisions of section 27 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act was proper and consistent with the principles of natural justice or arbitrary. The eviction petition was filed by the landlord on 27-8-1996, the issues were framed on 19-6-1997 and the case was adjourned to 2-7-1997 for filing of list of witnesses which were not filed and the case was adjourned to 14-7-1997. On that date, the appellants and' their counsel did not turn up but their absence was overlooked and the case was adjourned to 8-9-1997. On that date, the landlord submitted the list of witnesses but the appellants did'not comply with the order. The case was adjourned to 22-9- 1997 for evidence of the landlord and the appellants were directed to file list of witnesses within seven days. The case was adjourned to 23-9-1997, 9-10-1997 and 21-10-1997 for evidence of the landlord. On 21-10-1997 the appellants and their counsel did not care to appear in the Court but their absence was condoned, last chance was given to them and the case was adjourned to 29- 10-1997 and then to 11-11-1997 but on that date also the appellants and their counsel did not turn up.
The Presiding Officer once again took a lenient view and gave them a last chance by adjourning the case to 2-12-1997. The appellants and their counsel remained absent on that date also with the result that they were placed ex parte and the case was adjourned to 17-12-1997. On that date, an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was moved by the learned counsel for the appellants which was accepted on payment of a sum of Rs,200 as costs, the ex parte proceedings were set aside and the case was adjourned to 12-1-1998 and was further adjourned to 9-2-1998 and 13-2-1998 due to non-availability of the Presiding Officei-. On 13-2-1998, the appellants and their counsel did not appear but the learned Presiding Officer looked the other way and adjourned the case to 21-2-1998 for evidence of the petitioner and then to 10--3-1998. On that date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 18-3-1998 by the Reader. The Presiding Officer passed the following order on 18-3-1998:-- ' "Petitioner with his counsel present. Respondent with his counsel absent. Case proceeded Ex parte against the Respondent and his defence is struck off. Case adjourned to come up on 15-4-1998 for the Ex parte evidence . "
' On the said date, the evidence of the petitioner was recorded and the impugned order was passed.
7. The abovementioned summary of the events and orders makes it manifest that the appellants were fully conversant with the institution and pendency of the eviction petition and were given a reasonable opportunity to contest the petition by the learned Additional Controller of Rents who had condoned their defaults and conducted the proceedings to their entires satisfaction. However, their shocking indifference had left him with no choice but to place them ex pane and take the case to its logical conclusion. Even then he accommodated them by not passing the impugned order on the same date when they were placed ex parte. Another intriguing factor which stands out prominently is that' ex parte proceedings were taken against the appellants on 18-3-1998 and the impugned order was passed on 15-4-1998 but they had not cared to move an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings or join proceedings on next date of hearing. It does not stand to reason that they had no knowledge of the ex parte proceedings because the learned Additional Controller of Rents had not synchronised their eviction with the order whereby they were placed ex parte but had ordered the same on 15-4-1998 after recording detailed statement of the landlord.It would, thus, follow that the learned Additional Controller of Rents had held the requisite inquiry envisaged by section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act and the procedure adopted by him is in line with the provisions of section 27 (ibid) and cannot be labelled as arbitrary and inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.
8. The next point for detemination pertains to the contention that there exists no provision of striking off the defence in the Cantonment Restriction Act except where there is non-compliance of the order passed under subsection (8) of section 17. The contention is misconceived because the defence of the appellants was not struck off within the import of section 17(9) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act but they were placed ex parte, the case was adjourned for recording ex pane evidence and eviction was not ordered forthwith. The order in this context appears to have been made in passing and in any case it is to be ignored being superfluous.
9. The contention in regard to mechanical nature of the impugned order and eviction of the appellants on the ground of default in payment of rent instead of personal need is also misconceived and devoid of force. The landlord had sought eviction of the appellants on twin grounds of default in payment of rent and personal need and both the grounds were reiterated by him in his statement recorded on 18-4-1998, on which implicit reliance was placed by the learned Additional Controller of Rents for want of evidence in rebuttal, therefore, the ground of personal need, which appears to have been omitted by an oversight, is to be read into the impugned order.
In any case, the omission is of no consequence in view of the operative part of the impugned order whereby the ejectment petition was accepted and the relief prayed for was granted. The acceptance of the ejectment petition in its entirety leaves no room for doubt that eviction was ordered on the grounds of default and personal need. Neddless to mention that the procedure adopted by the learned Additional Controller of Rents and the relief granted to the landlord are unexceptionable.
10. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, in view of peculiar nature of the case the appellants are allowed three months time from today, subject to payment of rent, to vacate the premises.