2. The learned counsel contends that the appellant had not committed any default, therefore, order dated 20-9-1999 could not be passed, and for the recalling of which order even the application of the appellant was illegally dismissed. It is contended that the affidavit sworn by the learned counsel for the appellant has not been kept in view by the Courts below and ejectment order has been passed against the appellant illegally. It is also contended that application filed by the appellant for decision on oath has remained un-disposed of by the learned Rent Controller, which had to be disposed of before passing of any final order in the matter. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord on the other hand supports the concurrent ejectment orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as also the learned Appellate Court and has also referred to a counter- affidavit sworn by Mr. Muhammad Abid Khokhar, Advocate, Gujranwala, who had been conducting the rent case in the Court of Rent Controller, Gujranwala.
3. Material placed on the record has been perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The copy of the order-sheet placed on the record shows that order dated 20-9-1999 was passed by the Rent Controller in presence of the counsel for the parties, directing the appellant to make deposit of the rent for the month of January to May, 1999 by 30-9-1999. On the said date an application was filed by the appellant for oath about his assertion as to payment of rent. The case was then adjourned to 30-9-1999 for reply to the said application, which was filed by the respondent on the said date stating that the object of the said application was to prolong the proceedings. The matter was then adjourned to 8-10-1999, on which date the application of the appellant for oath was disposed of as having become infructuous, in view of the reply and refusal of the respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the application made by the appellant had remained un-disposed of thus stand controverted from the record.
It was on 15-10-1999 that application for recalling of order dated 20-9-1999 was filed by the appellant which was contested by the respondent. It may be mentioned here that on 18-10-1999 the respondent had moved an application for striking of the defence of the appellant for non- compliance of order dated 20-9-1999. It was on 1-11-1999 that the learned Rent Controller passed the order in view of the admitted position that the rent for the month' of January to May, 1999 i.e. Rs.7,500 has not been deposited and that the Rent Controller had no power to review his order passed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on 20-9-1999. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Rent Controller had no such power to review that order and order passed by him under section 13(6) of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was in force and had to be complied with unless reversed or modified in the appropriate proceedings. Besides the presumption of regularity and correctness attached to the proceedings of the learned Rent Controller, suffice it to state that assertion of the appellant stand belied by the record. It is borne out from the order-sheet that the learned counsel for the appellant was present when order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was passed by him. He was again present on 30-9-1999 as also on 8- 10-1999. Application for recalling of order dated 20-9-1999 was made on 15-10-1999. It is thus not difficult to infer that such a belated move was an afterthought by which time default has already been committed due to non--compliance of order dated 20-9-1999. Thus a feeble attempt was made by the appellant to overcome the consequences of non--compliance of the said order. As against the affidavit of Sh. Muzafar Ali, Advocate, Gujranwala there is a counter-affidavit sworn by Mr. Muhammad Abid Khokhar, Advocate, Gujranwala. Thus no safe reliance can be placed upon 'the same. During the course of hearing of the appeal the learned counsel for the appellant has stated repeatedly that the rent for the month of January to May, 1999 had been paid by the appellant to the son and an employee of the respondent. Respondent No.1 who was present in Court has quite emphatically refuted the assertion of the appellant. Safe course for the appellant was to comply the order dated 20-9-1999 and then to plead the payment of rent and produce evidence to that effect. He however, took a risk of facing consequences of non--compliance. Since the appellant has failed to comply with order dated 20-9-1999, no illegality has been committed by either of the Courts below in saddling him with the consequences of the same and has been rightly ordered to vacate the rented premises.