' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 has arisen from the order, dated 3-10-2006 whereby the Addl. Rent Controller Walton Cantt. Lahore by accepting the ejection petition of respondent Muhammad Shehzad Hanif directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question within 30 days.
2. Relevant facts of the case are that respondent No,1 filed the ejectment petition against the appellant inter alia on the ground of default in the payment of rent in respect of the premises in dispute. It was specifically alleged in the petition that rate of rent was Rs,40,000. Appellant entered appearance and contested the petition. Relationship of landlord was not denied. The appellant took up the plea that rate of rent as agreed upon by both the parties was Rs, 8000 per month. The learned Rent Controller on 20-5-2006 passed the order under section 17(8) of the Ordinance directing the appellant to deposit arrears as well as future rent at the rate of Rs,35,000 per month.
This order was not complied with and consequently the impugned order of ejectmet was passed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the orders sought to be impugned. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that factum of the rate of rent of Rs,8000 is evident from the admitted lease agreement, hence, the order for the deposit of Rs,35,000 per month was perverse and arbitrary, therefore, no order of ejectment of the appellant could be passed for non-compliance thereof. To supplement his averment, learned counsel relies on PLD 1988 Quetta 42 Haji Saat Muhammad v. Dr. Muhammad Saleem Qureshi and another.
4. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent controverts the contentions being urged on behalf of the appellant by contending that no doubt initial rent was agreed upon at the rate of Rs,8000 as reflected in the lease agreement but the same was subsequently modified from time to time and finally the rent was enhanced at the rate of Rs,40,000 which in fact was paid by the appellant to the respondent as is evident from subsequent lease agreements and the bank 'record enclosed. Hence, the order fixing tentative rent was totally legal and in accordance with record. It is contended that said order for deposit of tentative rent, dated 2-5-2006 was challenged by the appellant before this Court through a constitutional petition, which was dismissed on 29-5-2006.
5. In presence of the subsequent lease deed including the onewhereby rent of the premises appears to be Rs,40,000 and in view of the fact that, prima facie, said amount of Rs,40,000 was paid through cheques by the appellant, fixation of tentative of rent under section 17(8) .Of the Ordinance does not appear to be arbitrary or perverse. Therefore, the appellant was bound by law to comply with the said order and in absence of such compliance, the Rent Controller had no other option but to order appellant's ejectment from the premises in question. In this view of the matter, I hold that impugned order is perfectly legal and justified on the facts and circumstances emerging from the instant case. No illegality or jurisdictional defect has been identified by the learned counsel for the appellant and the impugned order having been passed with lawful authority and jurisdiction is not open to any interference. Consequently, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed accordingly. However, the appellant is allowed 30 days from today to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent. ' in the term indicated ibid.