1968 SCMR 111 (PLP)

S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The petitioners presented a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution in the High Court of West Pakistan to challenge the correctness and legality of the order, made by the District Judge, Rawalpindi, on appeal from a Rent Controller's order, by which the petitioners were ordered to be ejected from the house in dispute on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court and the petitioners seek special leave to appeal. Mr. Saeed Hasan Malik contended before us that there was no contract between the parties to pay rent every month. When questioned as to what the contract precisely was, the learned counsel suggested that the rent was to be paid as and when demanded. This is a novel kind of contract and no foundation for it was laid apparently, in the evidence led in the case. In the absence of .anything to the contrary, the ordinary implication of tenancy would be that the rent would be payable monthly. The point is, therefore, devoid of substance. Learned counsel then tried to maintain that there had been actually no default in the payment of rent on the part of the petitioners. The District Judge as well as the High Court have concurred in finding that there was initially default in the payment of rent for the months of May, June, July and August 1963. The petitioners had deposited the rent for these months, amounting to Rs. 1,375 in the respondents' -Bank account, on the. 27th November 1963. 11-t was further held that there was default in payment of rent for the months of May to November 1964. The rent for this period was deposited in the Rent Controller's Court as late as the 15th February 1965, even though there had been no refusal by the respondent's Bank to accept payment of any rent tendered by the petitioners. After hearing Mr. Saeed Hasan Malik, we are convinced that the findings are correct. At least in regard to the later default, there was apparently no excuse why the petitioners could not go on paying into the account of the respondent 'in her Bank, if they were desirous of paying the rent. The learned counsel mentions that his clients had put in an application before the Rent Controller on the 6th June 1964, seeking his permission to deposit the; rent for May 1964 and that orders were not passed on it by the Rent Controller till the 26th January 1965. There is however, no provision in the relevant law requiring notice to parties on such a petition. All that the petitioners had to do was to deposit the rent in the Rent Controller's Court if the landlord was refusing to accept the rent. In any event, the petition was only directed towards payment of rent for May 1966 and no further application or attempt seems to have been made to pay the rent for the subsequent period. The putting in of application before the Rent Controller and not obtaining his permission till the 26th January 1965, for deposit of the rent, cm the face of it, appears to have been a device adopted for defeating the landlord's claim. Even a money order could have been sent every month to the landlord for the purpose of payment of the rent. We are therefore, satisfied that the petitioners were in default with regard to the payment of rent and therefore, ejectment was properly ordered. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.