' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- On 19-10-1999, the appellant brought an ejectment application against the respondent on the ground of default in the payment of rent since 1-7-1997, and the nuisance. The respondent contested the matter and the learned Additional Rent Controller, after framing of the issues and recording of evidence, has dismissed the application holding that, neither the default in the payment of rent nor nuisance has been proved. In order to establish his case, the appellant examined P.W.1 Muhammad Nasir Kamal Malik, as his attorney, whereas the respondent himself has appeared as R.W.1. The attorney of the appellant (P.W.1) in categorical terms has stated that, no rent had been paid since 1-7-1997. However, from the record it stands established that, the respondent with the permission of the learned Rent Controller, has been depositing the rent with the Court w,e,f, 1-7-1997.
2. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that, this was without first tendering to the appellant, as the respondent has failed to prove the dispatch of the rent through money order etc., has no significance, because the rent could be tendered either to the landlord or by way of deposit and it is not absolutely necessary that, first the rent should have been sent through the money order. When the permission has been granted by the learned Additional Rent Controller, this was sufficient compliance of the obligation of the tender, in terms of law.
3. The other submission that the rent from the month of March, 1999 till December, 1999, has been deposited at the less rate of rent, because the rate of rent since September, 1998 was Rs,1,259 and the respondent had been depositing this rent with the Rent Controller till February, 1999 and thereafter, on his own, reduced the rent from March, 1999 to Rs,1,007 suffice it to say that, this increase in the rent is being claimed by the appellant on the basis of section 5-A of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, but under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, no such increase was made, thus, even if, under some misapprehension, the respondent had deposited the increase rent for C certain period at the rate of Rs,1,259 and thereafter, restored to the original rent of Rs,1,007, it would not mean that he had defaulted.
4. For the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has himself admitted in the cross-examination, that the increase of rent after every three years was agreed upon between the parties, it may be held that, in this regard, no agreement has either been pleaded, or proved by the appellant. Mere statement of the respondent in cross-examination that, as per practice, the rent used to be enhanced after every three years to the extent of 25%, would not specifically mean' that the enhancement of rent was agreed, for the disputed period as well.
Resultantly, the learned Additional Rent Controller has rightly found against the appellant. No interference is called for.
5. The other ground about the nuisance, has not been proved at all. Resultantly, this appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed.