ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.--- Facts giving rise to SAO 38 of 2008 are that on 14-3-2005 respondent Mian Muhammad Trust Hospital, Faisalabad instituted an ejectment petition against the appellant/ defendant with reference to shop No. 19 Ahmed Market, Mian Muhammad Trust Hospital, Faisalabad. It is alleged that premises was rented out to the appellant/tenant on 27-8-1996 at the monthly rent of Rs. 937/- wherein he is stated to have carried out the business of auto spare parts.
He continued to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 1313/- till June 2004 whereafter, he stopped payment thereof to the respondent. It was asserted by the respondent that since 2004, the appellant was liable to pay the rent @ Rs. 1,640/- per month. The appellant is alleged to have constructed a basement in the disputed premises with the permission of respondent and it was settled that rent thereof would be half of the disputed premises but the appellant did not pay the same and notice in this regard was sent to him on 28-3-2002, hence, became defaulter since July, 2004 and February, 2002.
2. The appellant contested the suit. It was the case of the appellant that respondent received the rent but did not issue the receipts From April, 2005. Respondent used to collect the amount of 3 or 4 months in lump sum and latter issued receipts, hence, the appellant was not a defaulter. He maintained that respondent received Rs. 30,000/- for the construction of disputed premises, the agreement sought to be relied upon by respondent was bogus, as the appellant was rented out the disputed premises in 1990 and that since his lease rights were not extended by the Provincial Government, therefore, appellant was not bound to pay him the rent.
3. Before the issues were framed, learned Rent Controller passed order under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance,1959 directing the appellant to deposit arrears and future rent @ 1,640/ per month till the final decision of the case before 15th day of each calendar month, closed the right to produce evidence of the appellant and directed him to submit receipt of the arrears/future rent and on account of non-submission thereof, defence of appellant was struck off with the consequence that the appellant was directed to vacate the premises within 30 days.
The only issue that falls for determination in the case was whether the appellant was a wilful defaulter. In his written reply, the appellant admitted that he used to pay the rent to respondent from the very inception of the tenancy. Moreover, the appellant did receive any notice in terms of 13(a) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance from the Provincial Government with regard to the change of ownership, thus, he was not liable to pay the rent to the respondent.
5. The appellant has also filed an application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and the learned counsel was asked to cross the initial and basic hurdle of limitation before arguing the case on merit. In this regard learned counsel says that judgment was passed on 24-12-2007, whereas, the appellant filed the requisite application for obtaining the certified copy thereof on 2-1-2007, and the same was prepared by the copying agency on 17-1-2008 but delivered on 31-1-2008, hence, the instant appeal is within time from the date of delivery thereof. Whereas, the stamp affixed by the copying agency concerned reveals that copy was prepared on 17-1-2008, but the appellant did not make any effort to collect the same on the day of its preparation. It is also evident from the contents of the application that no satisfactory and cogent explanation is given, except that delay in filing the appeal is neither international nor deliberate. Whereas, requirement of law is to explain the delay of each and every day in filing the appeal. Such essential ingredients are conspicuous by their absence in the said application.
Obviously, the instant appeal is held to be time barred on account of non-disclosure of sufficient and tangible explanation thereof.
6. On merit, learned counsel says that though the appellant was tenant of the respondent, but since the Provincial Government did not extend the lease in favour of the respondent/landlord, so he unilaterally stopped payment of monthly rent, and thus, cannot be considered or held as a wilful defaulter. Adds that both the Courts below did not appreciate the crucial question with reference to the relationship of landlord and tenant as no notice within the meaning of Section 13(a) of the Ordinance (ibid) was served upto appellant by the Provincial Government and that both the Courts below did not take into account the documentary as well as oral evidence, and thus, the findings are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence.
7. It transpires from the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 13-5-2005 directing the appellant to deposit the arrears/future rent @ Rs., 1,640/ per month till the final disposal of the case before 15th day of each succeeding calendar month. It clearly stands established on record that the appellant did not comply with said order of the Rent Controller. Had he complied with the aforesaid order, the amount so deposited by him was to remain in the custody of he Rent Controller. If 'a tenant, is not willing to pay the monthly rent, how cloud he be allowed to retain the possession of the rented present and could ask any relief from the Courts of law. Conduct of the appellant remained contumacious firstly be not complying with the lawful order of the Rent Controller and secondly by not producing any evidence to substantiate his claim. Furthermore, there is nothing on record on behalf of the appellant, which could show that non compliance of the order to deposit future rent was. Beyond his control or due to the act of God. Hence, he failed to perform his legal obligation and disobeyed the lawful order of the Court of law wilfully and intentionally, and hence, he was held, and rightly so, a wilful defaulter.
8. Apart from the question of limitation, for the foregoing facts and reasons, no case for interference with the concurrent and consistent findings of the Courts below is made ,out, as the conclusion drawn are in absolute conformity of law and facts. Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of any merit as also barred by limitation is dismissed at in limine stage of the hearing of the case with no order as to costs.