1974 PLP 221 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑Petitioners herein are successors‑in‑interest of one Ghulam Hussain who was occupant of shop No. 668, Ward No. 2, Fida Bazar, Mailsi, District Multan, which was transferred to the respondent under the Schedule to Act XXVIII of 1958. The respondent after issue of P. T. O. dated 18‑6‑1960, in his favour, gave notice to the petitioners under section 30 of the Act to pay‑rent at the rate of Rs. 60 as from the 18th June 1960, from the date of P. T. O. The petitioners were prepared to pay rent @ Rs. 4 per month which they had been paying to the Rehabilitation Authorities prior to the transfer in favour of the respondent and not at the rate of Rs. 60 as demanded by him. Upon failure of the petitioners, to pay any rent the respondent applied for their ejectment under section 13, West Pakistan Ordinance VI of 1959. The application was initially dismissed by the Rent Controller. On appeal by the respondent, the case was remanded by the learned District Judge, Multan, vide order dated 15‑5‑1965, for a fresh decision by the Rent Controller. After the remand, the Rent Controller after hearing the parties and their evidence ordered ejectment of the petitioners vide order dated 8‑7‑1966, on a finding that they had failed to pay rent to the respondents. This order was maintained in two successive appeals taken by the petitioners respectively before the District Judge and the High Court. The order of a learned Single Judge in second appeal is dated 26‑9‑1972. The petitioners seek special leave against this order on the ground that the respondent by demanding exorbitant rate virtually forced a default on the petitioners and that the fair rent of the shop did not exceed Rs.

4. It was further urged by learned counsel that the petitioners tendered rent @ Rs. 4 after notice but the respondent refused to accept the same. On the evidence adduced by the parties, the Courts below came to the concurrent conclusion that the petitioners failed to pay any rent even at the rate of Rs. 4 during the first three months after the receipt of notice by the respondent as required under section 30 of the Act. Therefore, they forfeited the statutory protection under that section. That being so, as subsequent deposit of what the petitioners considered to be fair rent would not efface the effect of their initial default. To avail of the protection of statutory tenant under section, it was their bounden duty to discharge their obligation as t payment of rent to the transferee within the prescribed period. Having failed to discharge that obligation, they cannot now question their ejectment. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.