' On 14-6-2000, the respondent filed an application for ejectment of the appellant from a house locata in Multan Cantt. He was alleged to be a defaulter in payment of rent. The house was also stated to be required for the personal use of the landlord. It was also alleged that value and utility of the house has been impaired by the appellant. The appellant admitted to be a tenant and did not deny the terms of the tenancy. He however, denied the allegations of default and personal use, etc. On 9-12-2000, the learned Rent Controller in presence of learned counsel for the parties and the appellant in person examined the pleadings. Found that relationship of landlord and tenant has not been denied. Recorded that the parties are agreed that the present rate of rent is Rs,5,885 per month. He directed the appellant to deposit Rs,52,965 being rent of April, 2000 to December, 2000 upto 9-1-2001. He further directed to pay the rent at the same rate till March, 2001 and from April, 2001 and similarly in the April, of every coming year, an increase of 7% would be effected and future rent will be paid before 5th day of every month. On 8-11-2003 the respondent filed an application stating that the appellant has not complied with the said order, inasmuch as, he has not paid the rent w,e,f, April, 2002 onwards with 7% increase. The appellant filed his reply on 22-11- 2003. His application was that he had deposited the rent due. Further plea taken was that he is prepared to pay the enhanced rent, if the Court so orders and he requires the same to be calculated. This application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on 27-3-2004 who proceeded to strike off the defence of the appellant and to direct him to hand over vacant possession to the respondent vide order, dated 27-3-2004.
2. Mian Abbas Ahmad, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant argues that a proper order was not passed under section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. He relies on the cases of Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Umar and others PLD 1982 Kar. 107 and Habib Bank Limited v.
Noor Ahmed 1990 CLC 1170. The precise contention is that the Rent Controller ought to have himself calculated the rent that was payable throughout the pendency of the ejectment petition. Further argues with reference to the case of Chaudhry Muhammad Amin v. Mst. Zahida Begum 1985 CLC 3018, that the case had ripened for arguments on merits and the said application could not have been decided without deciding the case on its merits, as well. Further argues that default was technical and could not have resulted to such a harsh consequence. Relies on the case of Noor Muhammad and another v. Mehdi PLD 1991 SC 711.
3. Mian Arshad Latif, Advocate on the other hand argues with vehemence that it was not a new mode that was adopted by the learned Rent Controller, rather the parties had admitted the agreed mode of payment of rent and it was in the agreement between the parties that a 7% increase would be made yearly and as such it cannot be claimed that the learned Rent Controller had left anything to the imagination of the tenant. According to him the default is deliberate and there is no ground for condoning the same. He relies on the case of M. Imamuddin v. Mst. Surriya Khanum through Legal Heirs PLD 1991 SC 317 and Arshad Mahmood v. Mst. Mahmooda Khanum 2002 YLR 3895.
4. I have gone through the learned trial Court records with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. I have already detailed above the proceedings that took place before the learned Rent Controller. Now as noted by me above, there was no denial of relationship of landlord and tenant, as also of the agreement which governs the said relationship. This agreement was placed on record as Exh.A./1. Now I find that the following term was agreed between the parties in this document, which was executed on 9-1-1998:- {{URDU TEXT}} 'Learned counsel for the respondent has thus, very rightly argued that the parties were fully acquainted with the manner and mode of payment of rent. Not only this even after the passing of the order it is an admitted position on record that the appellant did enhance the rent by 7% and deposited the same as is evident from receipts filed by him. Now no explanation whatsoever has been given in the reply filed by the appellant for not complying with the orders of the Court. So far as the said argument of the learned counsel in the matter of calculation is concerned, to my mind after giving a basic figure i,e, Rs,5,885 and that too with the agreement of the parties and, calculating the arrears to be deposited and after directing that rate of rent is to be enhanced each year w,e,f, April, 2001 in accordance with the terms of the agreement by 7% nothing else was to be done by the learned Rent Controller and this is evident on the face of the record because the petitioner did himself calculate the correct amount payable after 7% increase and deposited the same. The default thus, committed goes wholly unexplained.
5. So far as the said contention based on the case of Chaudhry Muhammad Amin is concerned, I find that his Lordship was of the opinion that the allegations of default required an exhaustive inquiry and accounting and could not be assessed summarily. It was in this background that it was observed that the matter should have been decided along with the main case. Now in the present case, the appellant took a brazen faced plea that he has not failed to comply with the order and has made the deposit and at the same time stated that he requires order of the Court to make a deposit of enhanced rent. Both the pleas are wholly incorrect. The default stood established on the face of record and did not at all require any inquiry. The contention accordingly is rejected.
6. For all what has been discussed above, this F.A.O. Is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the appellant is directed to vacate the suit house and to hand over its possession to the respondent on or before 31-12-2004. In case the appellant fails to deliver the possession on or before the said date, the respondent shall be entitled to execute the ejectment order.
7. Records of the learned Rent Controller be remitted back immediately.