2010 PLP 1115 (CLC)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a tenant under respondent No.1 in the suit house bearing No.SW-II-26-S-17/A situated at Ghani Mohalla Sanat Nagar, Lahore at a monthly rent of Rs.3200. The tenancy between the parties was oral which was commenced in the year, 2001.

2. Respondent No.1 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. The petitioner filed an application for permission to leave and defend the ejectment petition on the ground that the petitioner is not a defaulter rather he has paid the rent of suit house up to date. But on 7-5-2009, Rana Muhammad Sohail, Special Judge Rent, Lahore accepted the ejectment petition of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of leave to defend the ejectment petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 7-5-2009 which was also dismissed by Mian Mureed Hussain, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of infringement of order of this Court dated 25-5-2009 by which he was directed to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.3200 per month till May, 2009 hence, this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that orders passed by both the Courts below are against the law and facts, illegal, arbitrary and without lawful authority. Learned counsel further contends that learned trial Court has failed to realize the bona fide of the petitioner regarding deposit of rent and could not appreciate the evidence. Further contends that the petitioner has paid the monthly rent of suit house up to date and has not made any default during the proceedings or before. So factual controversy should have been decided by the learned Rent Controller after framing of issues and recording of evidence but it was not done so, therefore, the impugned order as well as order passed by the learned Rent Controller are against the principle of natural justice, this writ petition be allowed, orders passed by both the Courts below be set aside and the ejectment petition filed by respondent No.1 may kindly be ordered to be decided after giving opportunity to the present petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that the petitioner is a wilful defaulter who has neither tendered nor paid the rent of so many months even during the proceedings, the petitioner has not regularly paid the rent as directed by the Court, therefore, writ petition be dismissed.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. The money order receipt No.3866 dated 25-3-2009 reveals that the petitioner sent the rent of the suit house to respondent No.1 for the A month of January and February, 2009 i.e. Rs.6400 on 25-3-2009. Similarly, vide receipt No.3815 dated 19-2-2009, i.e. Rs.6400 rent of two month was sent to respondent No.1. The petitioner has not deposited the rent for the month of June, 2009 and similarly the current rent is also not paid. According to section 7 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, the petitioner was obliged to deposit the rent of demise premises before 10th of each calendar month but it was repeatedly infringed by the petitioner. There is also concurrent findings against the petitioner. In the circumstances, no interference is called for. This petition is without merit, same is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to vacate the suit house and hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to respondent No.1 within one month. A.R.K./A-84/L Petition dismissed.