1985 PLP 876 (SCMR)

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dismissing a Constitution Petition filed by petitioners by which they sought to challenge the order of the Rent Controller striking off their defence in ejectment proceedings initiated against them by respondent‑landlord which order was upheld on appeal by the Additional District Judge. The Rent Controller passed the order striking off petitioner's defence as he held that they had failed to comply with the earlier order passed by him on 26‑4‑1983 directing them to deposit arrears of rent and future rent in Court. The Additional District Judge took the same view and it was also affirmed by the High Court. Raja Muhammad Anwar learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the non‑compliance of the order of the Rent Controller dated 26‑4‑1983 was only to the extent of short deposit of Rs. 25 only which was due to inadvertance on petitioner's part which ought to have been condoned. Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly sum of Rs. 6,000 was lying in deposit as security with the landlord and any shortage in the deposit was adjustable against that amount. The first plea advanced before us was not even raised by the petitioners before the Rent Controller. In fact, as pointed out by the High Court in the impugned judgment petitioners did not show "any valid ground acceptable in law as to why the rent directed has been short‑deposited. It was not the case of the tenants that the tentative order was not properly conveyed or understood by them. It was also not the case that the tenants were prevented from making the deposit on any ground beyond their control. In this view of the matter, the; default clearly stood proved and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation offered in support of admitted short‑deposit, the Courts below acted with competence and well within jurisdiction in striking off the defence of the present petitioner's." The second plea raised by the learned counsel was also urged before the High Court and it has been rightly rejected for cogent reasons. The petition is therefore dismissed. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners prays that at least four months' time may be granted to petitioners to seek alternate accommodation for their business and vacate the demised premises. On the peculiar facts of this case we are impressed with this plea. We therefore direct that warrant of petitioner's eviction from the demised premises shall not issue for four months from today provided they deposit all rent due and also future rent for four months in advance in Court. On their failure to hand over the premises to the landlord after four months, they shall be evicted with police‑aid without further notice. M . I . Petition dismissed.