NAZEERUDDIN Versus ABDUL RASHID

ORDER

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑ The petitioner, a tenant, seeks leave to appeal against an order passed by the Lahore High Court on 26‑2‑1983 dismissing a second appeal against his eviction on the ground of his chronic default in complying with the orders passed under the Rent Restriction Ordinance.

2. An ejectment application was filed against the petitioner on 22‑1‑1969, inter alia, on the ground that he had failed to pay rent since 1‑7‑1966 and the latest assessment of the property showed the rent payable by him to be Rs. 200 per month. The petitioner contested the application on numerous grounds including the rate of rent whereupon the Controller by an order dated 6th of July, 1975 fixed tentative rate of rent payable by the petitioner from 21‑1‑1966 to 30‑6‑1966 <<t Rs. 15 per month and from 1‑7‑1966 to 30‑4‑1975 at the rate of Rs. 10 per month and directed him to deposit the arrears after deducting whatever he had already deposited towards the rent by 5th of June, 1975 and future rent at the rate of Rs. 75 before the 15th of the each following month. The petitioner unsuccessfully appealed against this order. He, however, failed to make the payments in terms of the orders passed by the Rent Controller under subsection (6) of section 13 whereupon his defence was struck off on 23rd of June, 1976 and his ejectment was ordered. The Additional District Judge rejected his appeal on 21st of July, 1977. He filed a second appeal and he was directed to deposit arrears of rent and also the future rent for protecting his possession pending the hearing of the second appeal. On his failure to do so, the High Court held that it was a case of chronic default and finding no explanation for non‑compliance with the orders of the Rent Controller and the orders passed by the High Court itself, the second appeal was dismissed.

3. It transpires that the petitioner was accepting his liability to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 15 per month and disputing the latest assessment. Such a dispute attracted the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to fix tentatively the rate of rent at which the rents in arrears and the future rent had to be deposited. This power the Rent Controller exercised and we do not find that there was any legal error in its exercise. Admittedly ,there was non compliance with the orders of the Rent Controller as well as with that of High Court by the petitioner and what is more a failure on the part of the petitioner to satisfactorily explain his failure. This was noted in the first appeal. The learned Judge in the High Court also found that in spite of a repetition of the orders of the Rent Controller by the High Court allowing yet another opportunity to him to make up the default he had not done so. The dismissal of his second appeal was eminently justified in such a back ground and we do not find any question of law arising there from which may require further examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.

4. M. Z. M. Leave refused.