1989SCMR1399 (PLP)

SAAR SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petition for special leave to appeal is from the order dated 12‑12‑1988 of the Lahore High Court whereby the Constitution petition of the petitioner was dismissed.

2. A big Mansion, known as `Dawar Buildings' situate on Shahrah‑e‑Ouaid‑e‑Azam, Lahore, was transferred to the contesting respondents by the Settlement Authorities on 28‑8‑1970. The petitioner was in occupation of its first and top floors. On 23‑6‑1976, the contesting respondents sent a notice under section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act to the petitioner and demanded rent at the rate of Rs.300 per month in accordance with the latest assessment. The petitioner did not comply with the demand but started depositing rent at the rate of Rs.75 per month with the Rent Controller. The contesting respondents filed an application under section 13, Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, against the petitioner before the Rent Controller for his ejectment. The petitioner resisted the application mainly on the plea that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. After recording the evidence of the parties the learned Rent Controller rejected the plea of the petitioner and directed his ejectment. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed. He then invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of ejectment. This too was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that after the Rent Controller had found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties he should have framed an issue on the question of default instead of summarily making an order for his ejectment. This plea was also raised before the District Judge who repelled it with the observation:‑ "Admittedly, the appellant never paid rent in accordance with the latest assessment despite the receipt of notice EX.P.1. He falsely denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, although he had been depositing rent in the name of all the transferees of the property including the respondent at the rate of Rs.75 p.m. vide treasury challans Ex. R to Ex.R.12. He was thus a contumacious defaulter in the payment of rent. He was not entitled to any indulgence. The learned‑ Rent Controller rightly proceeded to direct his eviction on the basis of the admitted default on his part without holding any further inquiry." The High Court in writ jurisdiction rejected the same plea with the finding:‑ "Needless to add that in the attendant circumstances of the case which on the own showing of the petitioner go to establish that he received the notice for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.300 per month on 23‑6‑1976 that despite receipt of the notice he did not pay the rent at the asked for rate and preferred to deposit the same with the Rent Controller and that too not only at a much lower rate of Rs.75 per month but also belatedly and did not mend his above attitude despite pendency of the proceedings in the Court of Rent Controller and that of the learned Additional District Judge wherein by production of documents vie. the assessments for the years 1965‑66, 1971‑72 and 1976‑77 it was amply established that the rent payable to the landlord (respondent herein) was Rs.300 per month, no useful purpose could have been served by framing the issue of default. The same even if framed stood manifestly established against the petitioner on the basis of available record." 4After hearing the learned counsel, we see no reason to take a different view in the matter of default. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A./A‑455/S Petition dismissed.