' This second appeal assails judgments/orders dated 25-9-2003 and 11-12-2003 passed by the learned Rent Controller and learned Additional District Judge, Jaranwala, respectively, deciding lis against the appellant.
2. A short factual background of the case is that the respondents filed an ejectment petition of shops in possession of the appellant, claiming him as their tenant at a monthly rent of Rs,600 per month which was subsequently increased. The respondents asserted in their petition that the appellant did not pay any rent w.e.f, 1-7-1999 and in this manner an amount of Rs,89,442 are arrears of rent, payable by him. The respondent claimed ejectment of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent and that they intent to reconstruct their property, which was alleged to be in a dilapidated condition.
3. The appellant being a respondent in the ejectment-petition, denied assertions therein and maintained that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The appellant also denied ownership of the respondents. The learned Civil Judge, exercising the powers of Rent Controller, framed issue of relationship of landlord and tenant, after granting repeated adjournments to the appellant for production of evidence, closed his right to lead evidence, on his failure to produce evidence vide order dated 27-7-2003 and ultimately ordered his ejectment through judgment/order dated 25-9-2003. The appellant aggrieved of his ejectment, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained., unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed on 11-12-2003. He has also now come up in second appeal before this Court and assails both the concurrent judgments/orders of the two Courts below.
4. The learned Civil Judge/Rent Controller had ordered ejectment of the appellant on 25-9-2003 and the appellant applied certified copies of those orders on 25-10-2003 which were delivered to him on the same day and the appeal before the First Appellate Court was filed after 25 days of obtaining certified copies of the order of the Rent Controller. Section 15(1) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, provides 30 days period of limitation for filing an appeal but the appellant filed it after 25 days and moved an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, urging that his counsel did not inform him about the progress of the case and thus, he was not aware of order of his ejectment. First Appellate Court relying on the judgment in the case of Hafeez Muhammad Khan v. Saleem and others 1988 SCM R, 1863(1) refused to condone the delay on the ground that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is not applicable to the rent matters, as limitation for this purpose was provided by a special statute i.e, Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on Abdul Karim v. Muhammad Ibrahim 1976 SCM R 79 urged that in rent matters condonation of delay was being allowed by the Honourable Supreme Court, as such, view taken by the First Appellate Court is contrary to law. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the cases of Messrs Sohail Textile Mills Limited through Mian Najeeb Usman, Director v. Water and Power Development Authority Through Superintending Engineer, Electricity WAPDA, Sheikhupura 2002 SCM R 1220 and Muhammad Bashir and another v. Province of Punjab through Collector of District Gujrat and others 2003 SCM R 83 to urge that in a similar situation where limitation for filing civil revision has been provided by section 115, C.P.C. The time was condoned by the High Court and was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. Delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Court may also be ordered to be condoned. It has also been contended that delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and occasioned due to non-receipt of information by the counsel and the same being not contumacious and deliberate, deserve to be condoned.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have examined the record/law applicable. Undeniably, first appeal of the appellant was barred by limitation by 25 days because he himself prayed its condonation by filing an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Limitation for filing appeal before the First Appellate Court has been provided by section 15(1) of the Ordinance (VI of 1959), which is a special Statute and in view of its provisions in section 29(2), section 5 of this Act is not applicable for condonation of delay. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has already set to rest, this controversy in the cases of Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst.
Mumtaz PLD 1982 SC 88, Ali Muhammad and another v. Fazal Hussain and others 1983 SCM R 1239 and Abdul Rehman v. Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1995 Supreme Court 546 by holding that delay in filing appeals under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance,. 1959 cannot be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act. First Appellate Court has rightly concluded the law point involved by holding that appeal before it was barred by limitation.
7. The appellant has no doubt tried to explain the delay in filing his first appeal, by saying that his counsel did not inform him regarding decision of the Rent Controller but an apparent fact escaped his notice that he after receiving information regarding decision of the Rent Controller, applied for obtaining certified copies on 25-10-2003 which were delivered to him, the same day, but thereafter he took 25 days in filing the appeal. This delay of 25 days has in no manner been explained. When a period of limitation starts running, it cannot be stopped by any subsequent act and delay of each day, has to be explained which is lacking ip the case in hand. A reference in this behalf can be made to the cases of Muhammad Hussain and others v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others 1975 SCM R 304, Government of the Punjab through Secretary (Services), Services General Administration and Information Department, Lahore and another v. Muhammad Saleem PLD 1975 Supreme Court 396 and Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi v. Muhammad Sharit through legal heirs PLD 1995 Supreme Court 472. In view of this matter, even on merits, the appellant had no case for condonation of delay and his application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, deserved to be dismissed.
8. For what has been discussed above, first appeal before the learned Additional District Judge was barred by limitation and the delay was rightly not condoned. There is no illegality in the judgments/orders impugned, hence, this second appeal being without any merit, is dismissed in limine.