' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Naseer, the ejected tenant, seeks leave to appeal from the judgment dated 12-12-2008 of a learned Judge in the Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed.
2. During ejectment petition filed by the respondent, the Additional Cantonments Rent Controller Rawalpindi, on 23-10-2007, passed an order under section 17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs,2,25,000 as specified arrears of rent before 30-10- 2007. The order was not complied with accordingly and hence the tenant stood ejected.
3. The tenant deposited Rs,65,500 on 29-10-2007. Before that, he had already deposited Rs,59,500 on different dates. Keeping in view the exact date of deposits, the tenant had only deposited Rs,1,24,500 before the specified date 30-10- 2007. A sum of Rs,100,000 was deposited on 30-10-2007 and a sum of Rs,500 is still outstanding.
This was a clear violation of order dated 23-10-2007 and hence the petitioner was rightly ejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a single Bench judgment of Karachi High Court Sarfraz Khan v. Muhammad Abdul Rauf PLD 1969 Kar. 176 where it was held that the deposit of rent by a tenant on and not before the fixed date was a bona fide mistake in interpreting order of Controller and hence could not be considered a default.
5. We have gone through the above ruling and do not subscribe to the given interpretation because it would be extremely convenient for every defaulting tenant to take the plea that he had fallen into a bona fide mistake in interpreting the order of the Controller.
6. The correct and genuine interpretation would be that if an order specifically lays down that the rent is to be deposited before the specific date, no party has a right to interpret that the rent is to be deposited by such date. The petitioner has not filed the order dated 23-10 2007, yet from the ejectment order dated 12-8-2008 (PP-21) and the impugned order of the learned High Court, it manifestly clear that petitioner was directed to deposit the rent before 30-10-2007. There being no ambiguity, it could not be interpreted otherwise. The petitioner has rightly been ejected. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.