SALEEM HAYAT Versus S. M. SALEH

ORDER

1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑ This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court can 17‑11‑75, whereby an order made by the Rent Controller striking of the defence of the petitioner has been upheld.

2. The relevant facts are that in September 1971, an application eras filed by the respondent S. M. Saleh for the ejectment of the petitioner from business premises bearing No. 45 and situate on Shahrah‑e‑Qaid‑i‑Azam, Lahore, on the grounds of default in the payment of rent since April 1971, damage of the property and subletting. By an order made on the 12th of June 1974, the Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs: 13,000. This order was challenged by the petitioner by an appeal in the District Court which was partly accepted by the learned District Judge by his order dated the 29th of May 1975, directing that the petitioner should deposit a aunt of Rs. 14,000 by the 14th of June 1975, and the Rent Controller should hold further inquiry as regards the remaining arrears remounting to Rs. 11,000.

3. When the matter came up before the learned Rent Controller on the 14th of June 1971. It was discovered that the order of the District Judge as appellate authority dated the 29th of May 1975, regarding the deposit of Rs. 14,000 had not been complied 'with. whereupon the Rent Controller proceeded to strike off the defence of the petitioner, and directed him to deliver vacant possession to the landlord within ten days.

4. This order was upheld in first appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, by his order dated the 29th of October 1975, and has been further affirmed in second appeal by the High Court by its order dated the 17th of November 1975.

5. Leave to appeal is sought mainly on the ground that the case having been remanded to the learned Rent Controller by the District Judge, by his order dated the 29th of May 1975, under rule 25 of Order XLI of the C. P. C., the Rent Controller was not competent to strike off the defence of the petitioner, and the only course open to him was to report the result of his inquiry to the District Court as appellate authority. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on two cases from the Indian jurisdiction cited as A 1 R 1953 Tra 109 and A I k 1963 M P 344.

6. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is entirely misconceived, and the authorities cited are altogether Irrelevant, to the facts of the present case. Tit is true that in regard to the arrears amounting to Rs. 11,000 the learned District Judge had or ordered the Rent Controller to hold a further inquiry an' to report its result to him, but in respect of the arrears amounting to Rs. 14,000 the order was specific, namely, that the deposit should have been made by or before the 14th of June 1975, This order was clearly in modification of the earlier order made by the Rent Controller on 12‑6‑74 under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance and had to be given effect to by the Rent Controller. There was no question of the Rent Controller submitting any report in this behalf to the appellate authority. He was fully competent to take action under the provisions of section 13(6) of the Ordinance, if there was any default in compliance with this order.

7. As a result we entirely agree wilt the view taken by the high Court it this behalf and dismissed the present petition.

8. Petition dismissed.