MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE CHAUDHRY Versus ABDUL HAMID

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller for the eviction of respondents Nos.l and 2 from a portion of property, bearing No.110, Urdu Bazar, Lahore, on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application and directed the eviction of respondents Nos.l and 2. The order of the learned Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. Respondents Nos.l and 2 invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the orders of the Additional District Judge and the Rent Controller. By an order dated 26‑8‑1987, a learned Single Judge in the High Court accepted the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

2. After nearing the learned counsel we are of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds with the High Court to interfere with) the orders of the learned Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge. There was no settled mode of payment of rent. Sometimes the petitioner would obtain the rent for 6 months in advance and on other occasions would receive the arrears for similar periods in lump sum. The default ultimately established related to one month. Considering the attending circumstances, the contesting respondents could not be penalized for not tendering the rent for that month within the specified period of 60 days. We should, therefore, think that the order of the learned Single Judge in the High Court wall proper. Leave to appeal is refused.

M.B.A./M‑482/S Leave to appeal refused