M.A. ZAFAR, J. --- This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Rawalpindi.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed an ejectment application on the ground of personal need and default against the appellant from shop No. 23-C situated at Haider Road, Sadder Cantt, Rawalpindi claiming himself to be owner of the shop and respondent in possession being tenant at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month according to lease agreement dated 16.7.2005.
Tenancy was not denied but personal need, period of default and rate of rent were conrtroverted.
3. The default in payment of monthly rent from 16.7.2006 uptill filing of application was alleged and according to the ejectment application the said amount comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. The learned Additional Rent Controller Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi vide order dated 23.10.2007 passed under Section 17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 directed the appellant to deposit rent from July 2006 to September 2006 at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month total coming to Rs.
2,25,000/- before 30th October, 2006 and if the rent has already deposited in the Court, the same may deducted from the aforesaid amount. It was also directed by learned Additional Rent Controller to deposit future monthly rent before 5th of each month with further direction that respondent/landlord will not be entitled to get refunded the said amount.
4. On 19.11.2007 respondent/landlord filed an application under Section 17(9) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 stating therein that the appellant has failed to deposit the rent before 30th October, 2007 as directed . By the learned Additional Rent Controller vide orders dated 23.7.2007. Appellant filed reply dated 4.2.2008 of the said application and in paragraph No. 3 of the preliminary objection he stated as under:- that the replying respondent has deposited amount within the stipulated time i.e. 30.10.2007 as per order of this Hon'ble Court."
5. The learned Additional Rent Controller vide order dated 12.8.2008 struck down the defence of the appellant and passed an ejectment order directing him to vacate the premises within 60 days after holding that he has failed to deposit the rent before 30th October, 2007.
6.. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that appellant was misled from the order passed by this Court and he remained under the impression that arrear of rent has to be deposited on 30.10.2007 and appellant made bona fide mistake in interpreting the order of learned Additional Rent Controller. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a case titled as Sarfraz Khan v. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (PLD 1969 Karachi 176).
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no ambiguity in the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Which was passed in the presence of the appellant. He further submits that appellant not only committed default in depositing the arrear of rent but he also failed to deposit monthly rent regularly according to order dated 23.10.2007. - 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record I find that appellant was directed to deposit the arrear of rent i.e.f. July, 2006 to September, 2007 at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month total amounting to Rs. 2,25,000/- before 30th October, 2007 but instead of complying with the order he deposited Rs. 65,500/- on 29.10.2007 and before that he had already deposited Rs. 59,500/- on different dates i.e. 9.7.2007, 10.8.200.7 and 8.9.2007 and thus before 30th October, 2007 he had only deposited Rs. 1,24,500/-. By depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- on 30.10.2007 appellant committed default in payment of arrear of rent as directed by the learned Rent Controller.
Appellant was supposed to deposit Rs. 2,25,000/- before 30th October, 2007 but he failed to do so despite depositing Rs. 1,00,000/i on 30.10.2007 there was a shot.Fall of Rs. 500/-. The order directing to deposit arrears and future rent was passed in the presence of the appellant and thus it cannot be said that he was not aware or he Was misled from the order dated 23.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller.
9. So much so, as per certificate issued by Accountant of learned Rent Controller's Office appellant committed default in payment of future monthly rent for the month of. December, 2007, February, 2008, March 2008 and August 2008 as same were not deposited before 5th of each month as directed by the learned Additional Rent Controller. The order passed by learned Additional Rent Controller directing deposit of monthly future rent remains valid till final decision of the case and the tenant is under statutory duty to pay monthly rent regularly even during the penedncy of the appeal. Reliance is placed on Qazi Qahir Khan v. Abdullah Jan (PLD 1963 (W.P) Quetta 21) and Ghulam Rasool v. Said Rasool and 2 others (PLD 1990 Lahore 457). Even one day delay in making the deposit would be default within the meaning of Section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 as the same was mandatory in nature and Rent Controller had no power to extent and condone the delay. Reliance is placed on a case of M.H.
Mussadaq v. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal (2004 SCMR 1453).
10. The order passed by learned Additional Rent Controller striking down the defence of the appellant is not open to any exception.
11. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. .