' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J---Through the instant second appeal the appellant seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 8-6-2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Okara and order dated 26-10-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Okara.
2. The succinct facts required for determination of the instant appeal are that the appellant is a tenant of Fazal House measuring 2 Kanals situated at Multan Road, Okara under the respondents since 10-1-1999 on the basis of oral rent agreement and had established a college namely Lawrence College of Information and Technology in 1999 in the rented premises. Thereafter, a written rent deed was executed in the year 2000 for a period from 1-7-2000 to 30-6-2001 with a monthly rent of Rs,9,700. It is further stated that the earlier period of tenancy from 10-1-1999 onward was also acknowledged in the said rent deed. It is also asserted that the appellant needed extra rooms for Laboratories, Library and other purposes which was carried out by the respondents for which the appellant paid an amount of Rs,3,97,500 and the same was incorporated in another rent deed from 1-7-2001 to 30-6-2002. It is next stated that the respondents exercising undue influence and exploiting the weak position of the appellant incorporated a clause in the rent deed that when the appellant would vacate the premises, he would be entitled to remove the debris of the additional construction and monthly rent was agreed on Rs,12,000 with an annual increase of 10% which had arisen to Rs,17,500 at the time of filing of the ejectment petition. As per the appellant he is paying a rent according to the terms and conditions of the rent deed and has never defaulted.
3. The respondents on 6-11-2007 filed an ejectment petition, alleged by the appellant to be based upon a forged rent deed wherein the respondents have contended that initially the demised premises was rented out from 1-7-2000 to 30-6-2001 at the rate of Rs,9,700 per month.
Subsequently, another rent deed for the period from 1-7-2001 to 30-6-2002 and then on 1-7-2005 fixing the rent at the rate of Rs,20,000 per month and the appellant had defaulted in the payment of the said rent. It has also been alleged by the respondents in the ejectment petition that the appellant has also encroached upon 1 Kanal of land of the respondents of the demised property, which is required to the respondents for personal need.
4. On the other hand, the appellant has controverted the averments contained in the ejectment petition by filing written reply maintaining that initially the premises was rented out at the rate of Rs,9,700 per month through rent deed dated 1-7-2000 to 30-6-2001. The appellant established a college and has paid Rs,3,83,500 to the respondents, who carried out additional construction. The appellant also paid Rs,3,97,500 to the Municipal Corporation, Okara as commercial fee and sanction fee of the site plan. Thus, the appellant incurred a total expenses of Rs,7,77,070 and the same has been incurred by the appellant with the consent of the respondents, which was duly incorporated in the rent deed dated 1-7-2001 to 30-6-2002. The appellant also vehemently controverted the execution of the rent deed dated 1-7-2005 which did not bear the signature or thumb-impression of the appellant and the seal as well as the signature of the so-called Principal, were forged which are not binding upon the appellant and the appellant tendered rent deed from 1-7-2000 to 30-6-2001 and 1-7-2001 to 30-6-2002 for evidence in Court. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 4-4-2008 directed the appellant to deposit a tentative rent of Rs,20,000 per month, which had been further clarified vide order dated 29-5-2008 and the tentative rent of Rs,20,000 will be paid from the date of institution of the main ejectment petition. Thereafter, the Rent Controller after framing of issues and recording of evidence ordered the ejectment of the appellant vide order dated 8-6-2009 on the ground of default, personal need and damaging the property.
5. Being aggrieved of order dated 8-6-2009 the appellant filed an appeal and the learned lower appellate Court vide order dated 22-7-2009 ordered the appellant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs,20,000 from 1-7-2005 instead of 6-11-2007 i,e, the date of filing the ejectment petition. An application was moved by the appellant for rectification of the order dated 22-7-2009 for depositing the rent from the date of institution of the ejectment petition. The learned Appellate Court concluded that no power of review is available to the Rent Controller and finally vide order dated 26-10-2009 rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence, this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that when the respondents filed the ejectment petition on 7-11-2007 mentioning the first rent deed as well as the third rent deed Exh.R/1 dated 1-7- 2005, which is a false, fabricated and bogus document and does not contain the signature of the appellant instead forged signature of his Head Clerk Muhammad Sharif has been affixed, who appeared as P.W.4 and denied the same, even the stamp affixed on the rent deed i,e, of Lawrence College of Commerce does not belong to the appellant but in spite of the same, the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the third rent deed ordered the appellant to deposit the rent from the date of institution of the petition although the appellant had asserted that on the basis of Exh.R/2 rent deed the rent was fixed at the rate of Rs,17,500 per month, the Rent Controller declined to accept the same and directed the appellant to deposit the rent as per order. It is further contended that the appellant did not commit any default. The respondents did not approach the Court with clean hands. The appellant had been duly making payments of the rent to the respondents through bank drafts and in this regard the respondents have admitted in his cross-examination that he has received 29 bank drafts each valuing Rs,17,500 on account of the rent of the premises whereas he was entitled to receive 35 bank drafts. It is also contended that the respondents did not specify the period for which they have not received the bank drafts. The appellant had produced 37 bank drafts, 36 receipts were issued by the respondents and 12 receipts of depositing the rent under the orders of the learned Rent Controller; as such, the appellant had proved that he has not defaulted in the payment of the rent. It is submitted that the appellant had also brought on record that he made an initial expenditure of Rs,7,77,070 on account of the modification made in the rented premises with the permission of the respondents; as such, there was no damage to the demised premises. On the personal need also the appellant fully proved that the respondent No,1 who has a son and two daughters and other buildings and is living with his son in Lahore and in this advance age, he does not need the premises for his personal need and he has also his own residence at Lahore. Three daughters of the landlord are married and as such the rented premises is not needed by the respondents for his only son and as such the findings of the learned Courts below regarding personal need are also baseless. It is lastly argued that in spite of these glaring discrepancies which have been duly proved in the evidence but the Courts below have not taken the same into consideration. Reliance is placed on 1988 SCMR 197, 2000 SCMR 556, 2001 SCMR 577 and 2007 SCMR 818.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset submitted that even the earlier two agreements had been signed by Muhammad Sharif on behalf of the appellant/tenant. Even the delivery of drafts as per the own showing of the appellant have been made by Muhammad Sharif, who has been from the very beginning of the tenancy, has been acting as an agent of the appellant; as such, the rent deed Exh.A/1 has duly been proved in evidence and the same has been accepted by the Rent Controller after recording the evidence as well as by the first Appellate Court and on the basis of the same the tentative rent of Rs, 20,000 was ordered to be deposited from August, 2005 to July, 2009. The appellant failed to comply with the order of the learned Rent Controller passed under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and subsequently the appellate Court had passed the order under section 15(5) and in the presence of the said provision of section 15(5) of the Ordinance, the appeal of the appellant was held, could not further proceed on account of the non-compliance of the tentative rent deposit order dated 22-7-2009 entail penal consequences as the appellant has failed to comply with the deposit of the tentative rent order passed under section 15(5) of the Ordinance, therefore, the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed due to noncompliance of the order dated 22-7-2009 passed under section 15(5) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, in view of which the ejectment order has been passed. Further adverting to Exh.R/2, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the additional construction was with regard to the making of aboratory and other two rooms while the appellant exceeded the same and the appellant has himself admitted the construction of more than three LOOMS.
8. Arguments pro and contra heard, material made available on record perused.
9. Admittedly, the landlord has only one house 173/E-2 situated in Johar Town, which is in the name of his son; therefore, the rented premises is required to the landlord for his personal use as the landlord has no other house to reside; therefore, it is proved that the respondents required the property for their personal need. The landlord appeared as A.W.1 and also produced Nadeem Ashraf as A.W.2 in support of his claim of bona tide need whereas the appellant has failed to shatter the veracity of statement of A.W.1 that he is not in need of the demised premises. In the case of Messrs F.K. Irani and Co. v. Begum Feroze 1996 SCMR 1178, it has been held that "Statement of landlord on bona fide personal need if consistent with the application for ejectment and not shaken in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal is sufficient to prove that requirement of landlord is bona fide." The learned Rent Controller/Civil Judge, Okara rightly decided issue No,2 in favour of the respondents.
10. Regarding the default in the paynlent of rent, the respondents have proved through their oral as well as documentary evidence as the Rent Deed Exh.R/1 is admitted between the parties according to which the rent was to be paid on the first day of each month but the 37 receipts of bank drafts show that these receipts are of various dates. The rent of the month of June and July, 2007 has jointly been paid on 11-7-2007. The appellant has not paid the rent of the months of June, 2005 and November, 2006, which shows the wilful default in the payment of the rent by the appellant. The appellant during his cross-examination has admitted that Muhammad Sharif is running the administration of his college. He also admitted that when the landlord refused to give receipt he did not file any suit in any Court. It also appears from the order dated 29-5-2008 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Okara, (Annexure-F) that the order dated 4-4-2008 passed by the learned Rent. Controller under section 13(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 regarding deposit of rent to the tune of Rs,20,000 per month has not been complied with by the appellant. Therefore, it is proved that the appellant is wilful defaulter in the payment of the rent and the learned Rent Controller/Civil Judge, Okara, has rightly passed an ejectment order dated 8-6- 2009 against the appellant. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Ch. Ijaz Sarwar v. Nadeem Farooq and another 2004 CLC 1525 and Javed Iqbal Butt v. Sheikh Fiyaz Ali by L.Rs, 2004 CLC 981, wherein it has been held that "Tenant was obliged to have first comply with order under section 13(6) of Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and then to have proved his defence about the payment of said amount---Tenant of his own could not refuse to comply with tentative rent order of Rent Controller-Rent Controller and Appellate Authority below, in circumstances, had rightly struck off defence of tenant and ordered his ejectment".
11. The learned First Appellate Court on 22-7-2009 while admitting the appeal of the appellant directed the appellant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs,20,000 per month from August, 2005 to July, 2009 as tentative rent subject to rent already paid and the appeal was adjourned to 11-8-2009 , 3-9-2008 and thereafter for 14-9-2009 but the appellant failed to do so. According to section 15(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 the appellate Court while admitting the appeal can direct the tenant to deposit the rent as are vested in the Rent Controller under the said Ordinance and if the tenant makes default in compliance with such order, then if he is the appellant, his appeal shall be dismissed summarily and if he is respondent, his defence shall be struck off. The learned Additional District Judge while passing the impugned order has held that the appellant/tenant did not comply with the order of depositing the rent under section 15(5) of the Ordinance and has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or ambiguity in the order dated 22- 7-2009 of the Appellate Court, therefore, the application filed by the appellant/tenant for correction/ explanation of order dated 22-7-2009 was rightly dismissed. As the appellant failed to comply with the order under section 15(5) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge rightly dismissed the appeal of the appellant because of non- compliance of tentative rent deposit order dated 22-7-2009 entail penal consequences. Reliance is placed on Khurshid Ahmad Qais v. Shahabuddin and 2 others PLD 1982 Lahore 13 wherein it has been held that the "order of Additional District Judge summarily dismissing tenant's appeal on account of default in depositing rent according to the directions of the Appellate Court, does not call for any interference by this Court.
12. Both the Courts below after properly appreciating the evidence on record have concurrently decided against the appellant and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the concurrent findings of the Courts below in view of the law laid down in the cases of Muhammad Rafique v. Amir Shehzad 1999 YLR 610, Raham Dil v. Province of Punjab 1999 SCMR 1060, Syed Ghani v. Mst. Saba Bibi 2007 CLC 1075 and Alamghir Khan through legal heirs and others v.
Haji Abdul Sattar and others 2009 SCMR 54. The findings of trial Court as well as of Lower Appellate Court are based on elaborate, careful and correct appraisal of evidence and did not suffer from any misreading.
13. In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed.
However, the appellant is directed to vacate the rented premises within four months from today.
During the interregnum period the rent will be paid at the rate of Rs,20,000 per month before 15th of each month.