1. ' By this appeal, appellant seeks setting aside of judgment dated 12th October, 1999 passed by learned Vth Senior Civil Judge and Re Controller, Karachi East whereby ejectment application of respondent Sh. Muhammad Naqi was allowed and appellant was directed to vacate the premises and hand over peaceful possession of demised premises viz. Shops Nos.2, 3 and 6 on Ground Floor of Building on Plot No,NE-II-C, Block 2, Daudpota Gali, Tariq Road, PECHS, Karachi, within sixty days.
2. ' Precisely the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that respondent Sh. Muhammad Naqi filed an application for eviction under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance stated therein that he is the owner/landlord of Shops Nos.2, 3 and 6 on Ground Floor of Building on Plot No,N.E.II-C, Block-2, Daudpota Gali, Tariq Road, PECHS, Karachi and appellant is his tenant at the agreed rate of rent of Rs,50,000 per month. The description of the rent of every shop is:--
(1) Shop No,2. Rs,20,000
(2) Shop No .3 . Rs,20,000
(3) Shop No,6. Rs,10,000 as per Tenancy Agreement dated 17-5-1992.
3. ' According to the respondent, appellant had paid an advance amount of Rs,6,00,000 as a rent for 12 months by Pay Order dated 17-5-1992 and the said period expired on 16-5-1993. He further paid an amount of Rs,2,00,000 by way of Pay Order dated 29-6-1993 for a further period of four months ending on 16-9-1993. Thereafter he avoided to pay rent on one or other pretext and ultimately by show of fire-arms he and his sons started threatening the respondent and his father of dire consequences if any demand of rent was made. The case of the respondent further was that his father. Ultimately died due to threats.
4. ' The appellant was served and Mr. Muhammad Arif Tarar filed power on his behalf on 11-1-1999 and matter was adjourned for filing written statement on 30-1-1999 but on the said date appellant/opponent moved adjournment application of extension of time. The said application was allowed in the interest of justice and the time was allowed for filing written statement up to 16- 2-1999. On 16-2-1999 none was present from his side and consequently he was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. On 24-2-1999, his counsel moved an application for setting aside above orders and it was on 23-4-1999 said application was dismissed. Simultaneously, respondent/applicant was asked to file affidavit in ex parte proof which was earlier filed on 26-2- 1999. Alongwith the affidavit he had filed photostat copies of Tenancy Agreement, Cheque amount to Rs,20,000 and Original application dated 23-10-1998. Since the original and documentary evidence of respondent/applicant went unrebutted and unchallenged as such it was on 12th day of October, 1999 Rent Application was allowed. It was against such order appeal has been preferred.
5. ' I have heard Mr. Muniruddin Alvi on behalf of appellant and Mr. S.M. Bangash on behalf of respondent at length and have gone through the R&P of this case.
6. Admittedly an ex parte order was passed on 16-2-1999 though several opportunities were provided to the appellant/opponent as he had failed to file written statement. As per subsection (1) of section 19, opponent will have to submit written statement/reply within 15 days of service of notice upon him. Whereas according to its subsection (2) if opponent to file written statement in the above stipulated period without any reasonable excuse the Controller may proceed for an ex parte order and after such order is made the Controller shall have no power to rescind such order.
7. Keeping in view these provisions of law learned Rent Controller was justified in passing ex parte order.
8. ' It would be permitted to note that appellant filed an application for setting aside ex parte order on 24-2-1999 and it was on 23-4-1999 the said application was dismissed by a detailed order.
9. Admittedly, the appellant did not challenge the orders before any competent forum as such the said orders got finality. In case when appellant failed to file written reply and lead any evidence then the Rent Controller was left with no option but to allow the ejectment application. The question that appellant was an ailing person and was hospitalized as such he could not file written reply, is devoid of any force mainly for the reasons that on perusal of his medical certificate appellant was found to be a chronic heart patient and was admitted in Special Ward of NICVD from 31-12-1998 to 8-2-1999. This goes to show that he was not hospitalized on 16-2-1999, the day when the ex parte order was passed. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant have no relevancy with this case as such there seems to be no justification to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders. Accordingly appeal is dismissed in limine alongwith the listed application.