2018 CLCN 121 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

ANTHONEY JOSEPH (LATE) VS Miss RUBINA S. 17---Cantonments Act (II of 1924), S. 126---eviction of tenant---Wilful default---Conduct of tenant before the Court---Effect---Appellant/tenant contended that eviction order against him was wrong as no proper opportunity was provided to him to lead his evidence---Respondents contended that appellant remained indolent throughout the proceedings before the Rent Controller---Intervener also moved application contending that demised property had already been sold to him by the landlord which was leased out in his name in result of decree obtained by him through Court---Validity---Rent Controller had specifically mentioned in the impugned order that at first occasion the tenant had availed 24 dates for cross-examining the respondents' attorney and after closing his side, when on his request Rent Controller again allowed him to cross-examine the respondents' attorney, he availed 29 more opportunities for the same purpose---Tenant had failed to submit his own affidavit-in-evidence---Attitude of the tenant showed that he was deliberately avoiding to contest the matter---Attorney of the respondents had submitted his counter affidavit to the application of intervener, wherein he had raised no objection if the intervener being new owner of the demised premises be impleaded as respondent in the appeal---Said intervener had also informed the High Court that building in question was declared as dangerous by the Cantonment Authorities vide notice under S. 126 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and all the tenants including the appellant had been directed in said notice to vacate and the appellant had vacated the demised premises---High Court did not find reason to open the matter which had already been closed while appellant had not informed the High Court about the same---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.