1978 PLP 161 (SCMR)

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑This petition for Special Leave to against the Order of the Lahore High Court in Second Appeal No. of 30‑11‑1976. By this Order the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal. The dispute between the parties is in respect of shop No. F/114 situate at Katchery Road, Mianwali. This shop was transferred to Taj Mohammed by Pro No. 71, dated 20‑10‑

59. On 2‑12‑60 the petitioner got the above shop from respondent Taj Mohammed on rent for a period of 3 years at the monthly rent of Rs.

100. It appears that after July, 1952 the petitioner stopped paying rent to the respondent No. 1 as the shop in question was transferred by the Settlement Commissioner, Sargodh on 29-2‑62 to him, and cancelled from the name of respondent No.

1. Respondent No. 1 challenged. This order in the High Court and his petition was accepted on 29‑5‑

68. The case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision. The learned Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 17‑7‑72 upheld the order of transfer in favour of respondent No. l dated 20‑10‑

59. The petitioner challenged this order in writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed on 21‑11‑

72. Thereafter, the matter was taken to the Supreme Count but petitioner's application for special leave to appeal was dismissed on the 3rd October, 1972. In the meanwhile respondent No. 1 filed an application for ejectment against the petitioner under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 in the Court of the Rent Controller, Mianwali on two grounds. Firstly, he urged that respondent No. 1 had become defaulter because he failed to pay the rent since August, 1962. It was further urged by him that the respondent had unauthorizedly sublet this shop in question to respondent No. 2 Ghulam Rasul. The petitioner contested this application. H denied the relationship of tenant and landlord. Preliminary issues were framed, and the Rent Controller by his order dated 11‑3‑1974 held that the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties. He also directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent In the sum of Rs. 4,915.33 for the period commencing from 26‑1‑70 to 26‑2‑74 and future rent at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. This order was challenged. In appeal which was dismissed to limine by Zakiuddin Pal, J. on 21‑1‑

75. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up by the learned Rent Controller who gave his decision on the question whether the respondent was a defaulter in payment of rent and whether he sublet the premises to respondent No.

2. By order dated 23‑7‑76 the learned Rent Controller held that the property in dispute has not been sublet by the petitioner. He, however, found that he committed default in the payment of rent, and, therefore, was liable to ejectment. The matter was then taken to the Additional District Judge, Mianwali in Civil Appeal No. 246/76. The petitioner took up further point before him that he was statutory tenant under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and a notice under this provision was necessary. This plea was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge by order dated 13‑11‑

76. The learned Additional District Judge also upheld the finding of the learned Rent Controller on other points, and dismissed the appeal. This order was challenged in Second Appeal No. 809/76 and a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by cider dated 30‑11‑76, dismissed the appeal. In support of the petition, Mr. Riaz Ahmad Pirzada the learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the point that the petitioner was statutory tenant under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and that ho was not liable to pay rent et the rate of Rs. 100 p.m. or a notice was required before filing the ejectment application. He had only urged that the finding of the Courts below on the question of default in the payment of rent is erroneous because there is nothing to show that the petitioner has made wilful default in the payment of rent. According to the learned counsel, the litigation was going on between the patties at the time of ejectment application, and a petition for special leave to appeal against the Order of the High Court in respect of the transfer of the shop in dispute was pending before the Supreme Court. In our opinion this contention has no force. The petitioner ought to have started paying the rent to respondent No. t on the date when the transfer of shop in his favour was upheld by the Settlement Commissioner The petitioner has not paid the rent to the respondent since August, 1962. This appears to be deliberate and in law amounts to wilful default. There is a concurrent finding of fact on this point. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy us that the Courts below have committed any, error or did not consider the evidence. We are satisfied that the learned' Rent Controller vies perfectly justified in allowing the ejectment application. In this view of the matter the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.