MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑ ‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 28‑2‑1988 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner/ tenant's Constitutional Petition arising out .of an order of its eviction under the Urban Rent Restriction law, was dismissed.

2. The learned counsel has contended that the petitioner was wrongly adjudged as a rent. defaulter. When told that it being a finding of fact, the High Court has rightly declined to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction, the learned counsel argued that even according to lain, in the circumstances of this case, it would not have been held that the petitioner "failed" to pay the rent "due" from it.

3. There was previous litigation between the parties for the eviction of the petitioner, which ended in a compromise; as a result of which the petitioner was required to pay enhanced rent at the rate of per square foot, which was being paid by United Bank Ltd. Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din. According to the learned counsel the respondent /landlady was legally bound to get the measurements made and get the rent determined even if it was at the rate which was being paid by United Bank Ltd. This failure of the respondent /landlady furnished a legal ground to the petitioner to pay the rent only at the rate which was prior to the agreement.

4. The argument of the learned counsel has no force. The difference between old and enhanced rent as determined in the proceedings out of which this petition has arisen, is nearly of Rs.2,000 per mensem. We have seen the order passed in the previous litigation regarding payment of the enhanced rent. It was the duty of the petitioner to ascertain from the United Bank Ltd. the rent which they were paying for their premises. Having done that they should have paid the rent at that rate, as agreed between the parties, promptly and if there was any difficulty, it should have brought it to the notice of the landlady.

5. After hearing the learned counsel, it is a clear case of default in payment of rent. The petitioner/Bank has rightly been evicted. There is no justification for interference, this petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

M. I. /M‑440/S Petition dismissed.