PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus RASHID ANWAR

This appeal is directed against order dated 4-12-1977 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by Mian Rashid Anwar, respondent and set aside order dated 17-2-1977 of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore, dismissing his ejectment application.

2. Mian Rashid Anwar, respondent filed an ejectment petition against the appellant from the property in dispute (SXVII-22-S-4-C Zaildar Park, Ichhra, Lahore) on the ground that the appellant committed default in payment of rent since 1-10-1972 and further that the property was damaged thereby impairing its material value. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition on 17-2-1977 which order was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge in appeal vide impugned order passed on 4-12-1977, against the appellant. Hence this second appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the property in dispute was in occupation of school the delayed payment of rent in lump sum did not constitute wilful default to be visited by penalty of eviction. It was also stated that the observation of the learned Additional District Judge regarding damage to the property influenced him to pass the impugned order on preliminary issue of default.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the default in payment of rent is established on the record therefore, the observation of the learned Additional District Judge regarding damage to the property even if not taken into consideration the order of respondent's ejectment from the disputed property passed in appeal is based on sound principle.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file. The payment of rent in lump sum beyond period of three consecutive months had always been held by the superior Courts of Pakistan, contrary to the provisions of Rent Restriction Ordinance and clear default for the purpose of ejectment of the tenant. The impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge calls for no interference. This appeal is of no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

6. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner prays that since the premises in dispute are occupied by a school, a period of two months be allowed for vacation thereof. The request being reasonable is allowed as also is not being opposed by the contesting respondent. The appellant therefore shall vacate the premises in dispute on or before 10-5-1993. The parties shall bear their own costs.

A.A./P-103/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.