' M. AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---This appeal is directed against the order dated 25-6-2003 passed by the Rent Controller, Lahore.
2. The facts giving rise to the filing of instant appeal are to the effect that Mian Muhammad Arshad-respondent herein had filed an Ejectment Petition against the appellants for vacating the demised Property No,9-J, Ground Floor, Cantonment View Housing Society, Baidian Road, Lahore Cantt., on the ground of default in payment of monthly rent.
3. The appellants had filed their reply denying the contents of the ejectment petition on 8-2-2003 and the learned Rent Controller on 12-4-2003 had passed an order under section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 directing the appellants to deposit arrears of monthly rent with effect from May, 2001 to March, 2003, @ Rs,4,500 per month before 15-5-2003 and further directed them to deposit monthly rent with effect from March, 2003 before 5th of every subsequent month till final decision of the ejectment petition and further directed that the respondent/landlord would not draw the arrears of rent deposited by the appellants till final adjudication of the matter.
On 14-5-2003 respondent had filed an application that the appellant did not comply with the order dated 12-4-2003 and failed to deposit arrears of rent. After hearing the parties, appellant was directed to produce Rent deposits slips. On 25-6-2003 no one was present on behalf of appellant/respondent and the Rent Controller, vide impugned order dated 25-6-2003 struck off the defence of the appellant and the ejectment petition was accepted. The appellant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the property within thirty days.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. There was no dispute about existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, therefore, the Rent Controller had passed the order for depositing arrears of past and future rent before 5th of each succeeding month. The appellant did not comply with the said orders. An application for striking off defence of the tenant/ appellant had been filed by respondent on 14-4-2003, just after two days, which was partly dismissed but the appellant was directed to produce the challan slips of the deposit of arrears of rent but appellant failed to give any reasonable explanation for non- compliance of the order and absented on the day the impugned order had been passed. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller and failed to persuade this Court to interfere with the same. Therefore, the Rent Controller proceeded through the impugned order to strike off his defence and as a result whereof the appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premised to the landlord/respondent.
6. The arrears of rent which had been directed by learned Rent Controller to be deposited through the order dated 12-4-2003 was a tentative assessment to be determined finally by the Rent Controller at the time of final adjudication of the ejectment petition. The defence of the defaulting tenant could be struck off only if he committed default in depositing of rent wilfully or negligently, as laid down in the case of Maqsood Ahmad v. Additional District Judge and others (1994 CLC 331).
The striking off evidence for noncompliance of the order passed by Rent Controller under section 17(8) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 is unexceptional in law. Reference in this context can be made to the case of Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani (2002 SCM R 1540).
7. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal being devoid of force is dismissed. However, the appellants are directed to handover vacant possession of the demised property to the respondent/landlord within three months from today and to continue making payment of the monthly rent. In case of any default, the appellants shall be liable to be ejected therefrom forthwith, in due process of law.