SYED NUR RIAHI GARDEZI Versus MIAN NASIM MUSLIM
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J .‑‑The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 13‑12‑1986 'of the Lahore High Court whereby it declined to interfere with the order dated 8‑5‑1985 of the Additional District Judge, Multan setting aside the order of eviction passed against respondent No.1 by the Rent Controller.
2. The petitioners are the owners of the rented premises. Respondent No.1 is their tenant. The' petitioners filed an application for the eviction of respondent No.1 on the ground of default in the payment of rent. On 29‑6‑1984 the learned Rent Controller made an order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance calling upon respondent No.1 inter alia, to deposit the monthly rent before the 15th of every succeeding month. On 24‑9‑1984 the petitioners moved an application before the learned Rent Controller, alleging that respondent No.1 had made a default for the month of July, 1983 inasmuch as instead of depositing the rent for this month before 15‑8‑1983 he had done so on 20‑8‑1983. This application was resisted by respondent No.1 with the assertion that as the Courts were closed during the month of August, he was entitled to deposit the rent for July on the re‑opening of the Courts on 1‑9‑1983; however, he had taken the permission of the District Judge and deposited the rent on 20‑8‑1983; thus the question of default did not arise. The learned Rent Controller rejected this explanation; struck off the defence of respondent No.1 and directed him to vacate the premises within 4 months. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Multan. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the explanation of respondent No.1 and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. The petitioners then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the legality of the order of the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The question whether non‑deposit of rent for the month of July before 15‑8‑1983 was avoidable or not was one of fact. The learned Additional District Judge and the High Court have recorded a finding on this question against the petitioners. We see no justification to interfere with the view taken by them. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a number of decisions of this Court on the question. On a close examination of these decisions it would appear that they all proceeded on the facts of their own. For this reason these are not helpful to the petitioners. The petition is dismissed.
M.I./N‑83/S Petition dismissed.