1998 PLP 135 (MLD)

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent filed the application for ejectment against the petitioners on 19-9-1991 on the ground that the petitioners predecessor who was a tenant under the respondent had illegally sublet the rented premises to petitioner No.2 Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, without his notice and knowledge, that they had caused damages to the disputed property, that the same was required by the respondent for his personal use, and further that they had not paid the rent of shop for the last three months.

3. In the written statement, the petitioners admitted the tenancy under the respondent but controverted remaining claim of the respondent.

4. On 19-12-1991, the learned Rent Controller passed the order under 13(6) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, directing the petitioners to deposit the future rent of Rs.800 per month in Court before the 15th of each month. On 18-10-1992, the respondent moved the application for summary ejectment of the petitioners for the non-compliance of the Court's order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance. The petitioners contested this application and the learned Rent Controller, struck off the defence of the petitioners and directed their ejectment. The learned Additional District Judge Rahimyar Khan after having heard the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal on 17-1-1995. 5 The learned Rent Controller, has recorded in his order that the respondent gave a statement on 23-1-1994 in the Court that petitioners have not deposited the rent for, the months of January and February, 1993 in Court and the learned Rent Controller had held that the opportunities were given to the petitioners to produce the receipts of the deposit of rent of these two months but the petitioners failed and as such he proceeded to strike off the petitioners' defence and accepted the respondent's application for ejectment and ordered the petitioners' ejectment.

6. The learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan has held that the rent for the month of February 3, 1993 was deposited by the petitioners with two days' delay and admittedly the rent for the month of January, 1993 had not been paid by them.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the rent for the month of January, 1993 had not been paid by them under the mutual agreement of the parties and the same was expended on the repair of property.

8. The existence of any such agreement or for that matter the consent was totally denied by the respondent before the First Appellate Court.

9. The default in payment of rent for the month of January, 1993 is admitted and it is also admitted that the rent for the month of February, 1993 was deposited after the due date. Therefore, the order passed by the Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the Punjab lent Restriction Ordinance was violated. The contention that the rent of January, 1993 was not deposited by the petitioners with the consent of the respondent is not a valid defence because the order of the Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the above said Ordinance had to be complied with by the petitioners in letter and spirit and without the permission of the Rent Controller no amount could be deducted as expenditure on repairs of the building. Even otherwise this assertion of the petitioners has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge correctly on the ground that the parties were bitterly on litigation and it is not believable that in such strained relationship the respondent could have ever allowed the petitioners to deduct any such amount for the repairs of the building.

10. The abovementioned shows that the Rent Controller correctly struck off the defence of the petitioners and correctly passed the order of ejectment because of the admitted default having been committed by the petitioners. No illegality or irregularity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Furthermore, the learned First Appellate Court has also found that the rent for the month of January, 1994 was e deposited on 18th and that of March, 1994 on 16th and thus the petitioners had committed further defaults as well. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to give any explanation for the subsequent default also. The conduct of the petitioners show that they are habitual defaulters.

11. It is, therefore, held that the learned Rent Controller rightly struck off the defence of the petitioners and the First Appellate Court correctly dismissed the petitioners' appeal. Consequently, this petition having no merit is dismissed in limine. A.A./M-459/L Petition dismissed