Respondent No. 1 filed an application on 20-9-1999 for ejectment of the petitioner from a house situate in Faisalabad Urban Area. The grounds asserted for seeking ejectment were non-payment of rent since November, 1998 in accordance with the terms of the agreement of tenancy and the requirement of the premises by the said landlord for bona fide personal use. This application came up before the learned Rent Controller on the same date and notices were issued to the petitioner for, 6-11-1999. On the said date the petitioner entered appearance. The case was put up before a learned Duty Officer who adjourned the case for filing of written reply to 15-11-1999. On the said date the case was adjourned to 18-11-1999. It was again adjourned to 22-11-1999 on the request of the petitioner as the written reply was not ready. On 22-11-1999 again the petitioner made a request for adjournment. He was given a last opportunity to file the written reply on 1-12-1999. On this date again the written reply was not ready and adjournment was sought, which was granted subject to payment of Rs.100 as costs, and the case was adjourned to 6-12-1999. On this date again the case came up before a Duty Officer who adjourned the case to 10-12-1999 as the written reply was not ready. On 10-12-1999 again the written reply was not filed and an adjournment was sought which was granted subject to payment of Rs.100 and a warning that this would be the. Last opportunity.
On 13-12-1999 the petitioner again failed to file the written reply and sought adjournment. The request was opposed by the other party and the learned Rent Controller proceeded to strike off the defence and to adjourn the case for recording of evidence of the landlord. The evidence was recorded partly on 3-1-2000, then on 11-1-2000 and then on 27-1-2000. Meanwhile, the petitioner in the first instance filed an application for setting aside of the said order, dated 13-12-1999 as according to him he was under the impression that he had been proceeded against ex parte.
Thereafter, on 11-1-2000 he filed an application for stay proceedings to enable him to file an appeal against the said orders. This application was rejected as the evidence of the respondent No. 1 was present which was recorded. Thereafter, on 18-2-2000 the petitioner filed yet another application praying that the witnesses be re-summoned and he should be allowed an opportunity to cross- examine them. He then filed an application on 7-3-2000 praying that an opportunity be given to him to defend the case. This application was rejected on 11-3-2000. Ultimately, the ejectment petition was accepted by the learned Rent Controller on 26-4-2000 and the petitioner was directed to hand over possession within 45 days. Against this order the petitioner filed an appeal which was entertained by learned respondent No.3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application complaining that Court-fee has not been paid on the appeal and that an order be passed directing the petitioner to deposit the rent. The petitioner did pay the Court-fee. The appeal was rejected on 13-10-2000 by the learned respondent No.3 holding that the petitioner has violated the order passed by him for deposit of rent. Against this order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.21494 of 2000 which was heard by me. It was allowed on 16-11-2000 and the appeal was remanded back for a fresh decision as also for passing an appropriate order regarding deposit of rent. The appeal has been dismissed by the learned respondent No.3 vide order, dated 3-4-2001 directing the petitioner to hand over the possession within 15 days.
2. Learned counsel contends that the defence of the petitioner could not have been struck off by the learned Rent Controller as he was not required to file a written reply. Relies on the case of The Secretary, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another v. Khalid Ahmad Khan 1991 SCMR 2527.
Further contends that the learned Rent Controller had moved with unusual haste in the matter. Also complains that he was not given a chance to cross---examine the witnesses of respondent No. 1.
3. I have gone through the records, copies whereof have been appended with the writ petition. So far as the said first contention of the learned counsel is concerned, I have already referred to the various orders passed by the learned Rent Controller giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file a written reply. To my mind, in the circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the petitioner was not required by the learned Rent Controller to file a written reply. In almost similar circumstances where similar orders were being passed on the request of the defendant in the suit a Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan comprising four Honourable Judges including the Honourable Chief Justice held in the case of Mst. Hakumat Bibi v. Imam Din and others PLD 1987 SC 22 that the jurisdiction exercised by the Court while striking off the defence was proper.
4. Coming to the said second contention in our view of the proceedings may give an impression of haste but considering that this was an ejectment petition and the learned Rent Controllers are under general directions to deal with these matters expeditiously, the terror of the orders is understandable. I may here refer to the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court to the Rent Controllers in the case of Barkat A.I v. Muhammad Ehsan and another 2000 SCM R 556. I will particularly refer to the directions which require a Rent Controller not to adjourn the cases at all and even if an adjournment is unavoidable, it should not be made for a period exceeding three days. I do not, therefore, find myself in agreement with the learned counsel so far as the said second contention is concerned.
5. Coming to the said third contention, I find from the copy of the relevant order sheets as also the evidence sheet; that the evidence was recorded in the presence of the petitioner (incidentally it is stated that the petitioner himself is a practising Advocate in the city of Faisalabad), and that he had not cross-examined the witness. I find it hard to believe the plea of the petitioner that evidence was recorded in his absence or that he was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses as stated by the learned Rent Controller in his various orders. I do not find any material on record to feel convinced in believing the petitioner as against the judicial record of the learned Rent Controller. As observed in the case of Abdullah v. Shaukat 2001 SCM R 60 the sanctity of the judicial record cannot be sacrificed at the altar of expediency of a litigant. Learned counsel then tried to argue that he filed an application before the learned appellate Court praying that the agreement of tenancy (Exh.A.) be sent to some expert to check that note appended therewith declaring that the tenancy has ceased has been rubbed off with some chemical. The background of this contention is that it is now being stated by the petitioner that respondent No. 1 had agreed to sell the house to the brother of the petitioner. There is no document evidencing the sale. At least a copy of one has not been appended in these proceedings. Be that as it may, with respect, the plea is absurd. If the purport was to ensure that tenancy come to an end as a result of the said alleged transaction between respondent No. 1 and the brother of the petitioner, there is no point in leaving the document by appending a note thereon in the said terms in the custody of respondent No. 1.
The document could have been simply cancelled and got delivered up. Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the said plea particularly when he had not raised the same in scores of application he filed before the learned Rent Controller. No other point has been urged.
The writ petition is dismissed in limine. The petitioner shall, however, vacate the premises within one month i.e. On or before 16-5-2001 failing which respondent No. 1 shall get the ejectment order executed.