M.A. ZAFAR, J.- Brief facts of the case are that respondent Muhammad Asghar being owner/landlord of shop No. N-308/309-A situated at Taili Mohallah, Murree Road, Rawalpindi filed an ejectment petition against the appellant/tenant on the ground of personal need and default in payment of rent.
2. The ejectment petition was contested by the appellant denying any default in the payment of rent and he also denied the personal need of the respondent. The learned Rent Controller in the light of divergent pleadings of the parties on 20.5.2006 directed the appellant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month before 15th of each month and on the same day he also framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the respondent is rent defaulter, is so, 'at what rate and for what period? OPA.
(2) Whether the rent of shop of Rs. 5,000/? QPA.
(3) Whether the shop is required by. The petitioner bona finely? OPA.
(4) Whether the application is liable to be dismissed? OPD.
(5) What should be the order.
3. The learned Rent Controller passed the ejectment order on the ground of personal need and default in payment of rent since September 2005, to September 2006.
4. Against the said order, appellant filed an appeal before the learned District Judge Rawalpindi and the\ same was finally decided by learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi 'vide judgment dated 26.6.2008, who set aside the findings of learned Rent Controller on the issue of personal heed but maintained the same qua the default in payment of rent holding him defaulter from December, 2005 to September 2006.
5. Admittedly, the appellant has not submitted any receipt of payment of rent for the period starting from January 2006 to May 2006. During the pendency of ejectment petition an order u/&.
13 (6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was passed on 20.5.2006 by the learned Rent Controller directing the appellant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- on or before 15th of every month. There is nothing on record about the payment/deposit of rent for the month of January 2006 to May 2006 although there is receipt of deposit of rent from the month of December 2005. It is unbelievable that the appellant had been paying the rent to the respondent without taking any receipt from him even after filing and during the pendency of the ejectment application, which was filed on 23.12.2005. If the appellant was paying the rent to the respondent/landlord without getting any receipt from him then there was no fun to deposit the rent for the month of December 2005 on 23.12.2005 after getting permission from the learned Rent Controller. Appellant after the said deposit failed to tender or pay the rent to the respondent/landlord for complete five months and thus the learned Courts below have rightly held the appellant to be a defaulter, Although there is also a findings against the appellant qua issue No. 2 that be had failed to pay the rent at the enhanced rate but there is no need to dilate upon the said issue as it has been established on record that the appellant is a defaulter and he had failed to pay or tender the rent for a period of five months. Resultantly, there is no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, one-month time is given to the appellant to vacate the shop in question. He has already availed a period of three months for vacation of the shop in by the learned Courts below while passing the ejectment order.