1990 PLP 990 (SCMR)

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 488‑R and 489‑R of 1989, decided on 15th October, 1989. ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑ Order of ejectment upheld by High Court‑‑‑As to factual aspect of the case which the petitioner tried to argue there were concurrent findings of facts by Courts below‑‑‑High Court had thoroughly discussed the merits of case in its findings which suffered from no legal or other defects‑‑‑Agreement in writing, terms whereof petitioner tried to refer was negated by the conduct of petitioner when he failed to pay :'‑c ‑greed rent, non‑payment of which had clearly proved the default committed on his part‑‑‑Petitioner neither produced any receipt of payment of rent nor any permission from the Rent Controller to deposit the same in Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Mirza Anwar Baig Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions). Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in both Petitions). Date of hearing: 15th October, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑The dispute in the above‑mentioned petitions for special leave to appeal relates to ejectment applications filed by the landlady Mst. Sardar Begum, wife of Mr. G.M. Dar against her tenant Mr. Muhammad Zaman petitioner in both the petitions and Mr. S. Irfan Malik petitioner No. 2 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 489‑R of 1989, from Shop No. 17/37 known as Ideal Shopping Centre, near Aslam Market, Wah Cantt. in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 488‑R of 1989 and from a Flat in property No. 17,/37 Civic Centre Wah Cantt. in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 489‑R of 1989. It was alleged that the property in dispute of the former petition was initially rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs.170 vide agreement dated 16‑4‑1970. On 2‑11‑1970 the petitioner agreed in writing in the Court of the District Judge to pay the rent of the said shop according to the assessment of the property carried out by the Cantonment Board. Mst. Sardar Begum respondent accordingly claimed the rent of the shop as Rs.450 p.m. with effect from 1‑7‑1981 which was refused by the petitioner and thus committed the default in payment of rent. As regards the latter petition it was alleged by the respondent Mst. Sardar Begum that the flat in dispute was rented out to petitioner No. 1 at a monthly rent of Rs.230 p.m. for the purpose of his residence but he converted part of the said flat into an office and sublet the same to petitioner No.

2. It was also alleged by the respondent that the rent of the disputed flat was not paid by the petitioner No. 1 for the period from July to October, 1980. Both the Rent Applications were contested by the parties. The learned Rent Controller after framing the issues on the pleadings of the parties and thereafter recording the evidence accepted both the applications of respondent and vide his order dated 26‑12‑1985 the petitioners in both the petitions were ordered to vacate the shop within one month and hand over the vacant possession to respondent and also to vacate the flat within two months from the date of the announcement of the said order. The petitioners filed two separate appeals against the said orders in the Lahore High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court vide his orders dated 27‑5‑1989 dismissed both the appeals and extended the period of vacation to hand over vacant possession to the respondent in both the petitions to further three months from the said judgments. Hence these two petitions for leave to appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the findings of the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to argue the factual side of the case. After hearing him on this point we find that there is no substance in his arguments as the matter involved in these petitions stands concluded on concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has thoroughly discussed the merits of the case in his findings which in our opinion suffer from no legal or otherwise defects. As the agreement in writing in the Court is negated by the conduct of the petitioner No. 1 in these petitions when he failed to pay the agreed rent, the non payment of which has clearly proved the default committed on his part. The record of the case does not show any entry of the Post Office that the respondent has refused to accept the amount of rent for the months of September and October, 1980 sent by money order. The petitioners neither produced any receipt of payment of rent for the months of July and August, 1980 nor any permission from the Court of Rent Controller to deposit the rent in the Court. Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in these two petitions which, accordingly, are dismissed. AA./M‑1116/5 Petitions dismissed.