' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- This appeal under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, is directed against order, dated )4-5-2006, whereby the defences of the appellant were struck off for non-compliance of the order to deposit rent under section 17(8) of the Act; and order for his ejectment was passed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the respondent filed an application for ejectment against the appellant in respect of the upper portion of House No,E-154, Yasrab Colony, Street No,7, Walton Road, Lahore Cantt. On the ground of default in payment of rent and personal need. It was contended in the petition that the premises in dispute was rented out by the respondent/petitioner as "Post Office requisition" for an initial rent of Rs,475 per month, which was eventually increased to Rs,1,035 per month. The present appellant, on service, entered appearance and filed his written statement contesting the application. The relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied, however, it was specifically contended that initially it was the lower portion, not the premises in dispute, which had been occupied by the petitioner and was requisitioned by his employer the Post Office Department. It was further, inter alia, contended that the upper portion i,e, the premises in dispute, was occupied by the appellant in terms of a written agreement at the rate of rent Rs,600 per month, which had been paid in advance. The Additional Rent Controller on 27-1- 2004 passed an order under section 17(8) of the Act fixing the tentative rent as Rs,1,000 per month.
Aggrieved the appellant challenged the said order vide Writ Petition No,1909 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order, dated 13-2-2004 directing the Rent Controller to advert to the defences taken by the writ petitioner/appellant before proceeding further in the matter. Subsequently, the writ petitioner/appellant filed an application for contempt of Court before this Court, which was disposed of, vide order dated 5-3-2004, wherein the direction was reiterated and the Rent Controller was directed to advert to the defences taken by the writ petitioners/appellant in his written statement before proceeding further in the matter.
3. Meanwhile, the appellant had filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking modification of order dated 27-1-2004, under section 17(8) of the Act fixing the tentative rent. The Rent Controller vide order dated 8-2-2005, dismissed the aforesaid application; did not modify theorder and concluded that the said order was not complied with. The Rent Controller struck off the defences of the appellant and directed his ejectment.
4. Aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal bearing No,F.A.O. 42 of 2005, challenging the order, dated 8-2-2005, which was accepted by this Court vide order, dated 8-7-2005 and the case was remanded to the Additional Rent Controller with a direction to conduct de novo proceedings after refixing the tentative rent under section 17(8) of the Act. The Rent Controller vide order, dated 18-4- 2006 fixed the tentative rent at the rate of Rs,815 per month. The appellant was directed to deposit the arrears of rent from January, 2001 to March, 2006 and the future rent at the said rate from April, 2006 to each succeeding A month. Aggrieved the appellant challenged the said order, dated 18-4- 2006 through a Constitutional Petition No,419 of 2006, which was dismissed by this Court.
Subsequently, on 6-5-2006, the respondent filed an application under section 17(9) of the Act seeking striking off the defence of the appellant for non-compliance of the order regarding deposit of the rent. Admittedly the appellant had not deposited arrears or future rent, consequently, vide impugned order, dated 24-5-2006 defence of the appellant was struck off and his ejectment ordered.
5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record requisitioned from the Court of the Additional Rent Controller, perused.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the order passed under section 17(8) of the Act dated 18-4-2006 was not complied with by the appellant. The primary contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the order fixing the tentative rent is illegal and contrary to the record. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent claimed the rent at the rate of Rs,1,035 per month while case of the appellant is that the rate of rent was 600 per month, which was to be adjusted against the amount allegedly expended by the appellant on the construction of the upper storey. In this behalf the alleged agreement had been relied upon the execution whereof had been denied by the respondent. The Rent Controller after examining the plea of the appellant in juxtaposition with the contents of the alleged agreement relied upon that the appellant, after noticing the contradiction between the two fixed the tentative rent at the rate of Rs,815 per month.
Said order of the tentative rent was not alien to the material available on the record nor arbitrary or capricious. The appellant challenged the same by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, however, the petition filed in this behalf was dismissed.
' In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the tentative rent fixed by the Rent Controller is illegal, arbitrary and capricious or otherwise based on material extraneous to the record. Admittedly the appellant has not complied with the order to deposit arrears of the fixed rent, hence, his defence has rightly been struck off by way of the impugned order, which is in accordance with law. No illegality has been pointed out at the bar so as to persuade this Court to hold that the impugned order of ejectment is invalid consequently this appeal without being any merit is hereby dismissed. The appellant is allowed 30 days from today to vacate the premises in dispute. The record requisitioned from the Court of the Additional Rent Controller, Lahore, be returned forthwith.