MUHAMMAD SHAFI BUTT Versus ARSHAD A. MALIK

The petitioner, Muhammad Shaft, has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned orders dated 24‑2‑1987 and 15‑7‑1987 respectively passed by the learned respondents Nos. 2 and 3, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Muhammad Shafi, is a tenant of respondent No. 1 in a shop situate in Mohallah Totianwala, Gujranwala City at the monthly rent of Rs.110. Respondent No. 1 filed an eviction petition against the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller on the ground of reconstruction and personal need. The petition was contested by the petitioner and the learned Rent Controller framed as many as two issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 26‑5‑1985 passed an order under section 13 subsection (6) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, directing that the rent w.e.f. June 1985 shall be deposited before fifteenth of each month in Court by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller proceeded to pass an order of ejectment against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has violated the order passed by him for deposit of the rent in Court and accordingly, the defence of the petitioner was struck off. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the above said order went in appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gujranwala, vide his order dated 15‑7‑1987.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitioner has failed to follow the order of the learned Rent Controller. Learned counsel stated that the petitioner has paid the rent upto date and that he has not at all committed any default. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that it is established that the petitioner is the defaulter in the payment of rent. Learned counsel vehemently argued that despite the fact that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce the original receipts showing the payment of rent, he has failed to produce the same. Learned counsel stated that this shows that the petitioner is guilty of default in payment of rent. Learned counsel submitted that there is a finding of fact having been arrived at by the learned two Tribunals below. Learned counsel stated that no question of law is involved in the case and as such the petition is not at all maintainable.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. The learned Rent Controller observed in his order that the petitioner has violated his order dated 26‑5‑1985 whereby he was directed to deposit the rent prior to fifteenth of every month. This finding of fact arrived at by the learned Rent Controller has been duly affirmed by the learned appellate Court after considering the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties. It has been observed by the learned appellate Court that the receipts produced and relied upon by the petitioner showed in clear terms that the rent for the months of August, September, November and December 1985 and January, July and August 1986, was sent to the respondent after 14th day of next month respectively and thus committed default for which no reasonable cause has been given by him. The learned Appellate Court has further observed that the petitioner conceded before him that the rent for the month of June 1986 was not at all sent to the landlord through money order. On these premises, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and held that the learned Rent Controller rightly struck off the defence of the petitioner. The learned counsel. appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not at all been able to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned District Judge in the case. It may be pointed out that the petitioner was directed produce the original receipts showing the payment of rent, however, he has failed to do so. This will also show that the conduct of the petitioner is not above‑board. I do not find any substance in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the petitioner is allowed four months' time to vacate the premises in dispute.

A . A. /M‑5551L Petition dismissed.