' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 15-3-2007, whereby the learned Lahcre High Court at Lahore allowed respondent No, 1's Constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,2762 of 2006) and consequently dismissed petitioner's ejectment petition.
2. The petitioner, claiming to be owner of disputed house and alleging that respondent No,1 (respondent) has been paying rent since January, 1991 @ Rs,500 per month to him, filed an ejectment petition against the respondent before the learned Rent Controller for her eviction from the disputed house (elaborately described in the ejectment petition), on the grounds of default in payment of rent and his personal need. The respondent resisted the ejectment petition through filing written reply inter alia, controverting the grounds of ejectment and pleading that relationship of landlord and tenant does exist inter se the parties; that no default was committed and that the house is being used for residential purposes and it could not be got vacated for non-residential purposes. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether the respondent is a defaulter for the payment of monthly rent to the petitioner? OPA.
(2) Whether the respondent enhanced the rent after every three years at the rate of 25%? OPA.
(3) Whether the property in dispute is required by the petitioner for his personal bona fide need?
OPA.
(4) Whether the petitioner's petition is false and frivolous? OPR.
(5) Whether the petitioner is not come to the Court with clean hands? OPR.
(6) Relief.
' The learned Rent Controller after recording evidence of the parties and finding that the rent was deposited with the Rent Controller and as the house is being used for residential purposes, therefore, it cannot be got vacated for non-residential purposes decided both the issues in favour of the respondent and dismissed the ejectment petition, vide order dated 10-5-2005. Petitioner's appeal was allowed by the learned Appellate Authority, which reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller on the issue of default, but the findings on the issue of personal need were maintained, vide judgment dated 9-3-2006 and resultantly ejectment was ordered. Respondent filed the Constitutional petition (Writ Petition No,2762 of 2006), which was allowed by the learned Lahore High Court at Lahore, vide impugned judgment dated 15-3-2007, hence the present petition.
3. The petitoner, who opted to argue the case himself, referred to photocopies of rent deposit receipts, to submit that since the rent of May, 1999, November, 1999, February, 2000 and August, 2001 was deposited after the period of 90 days, therefore, the respondent committed default in the payment of rent and that the parties agreed to enhance the rent @ 25%, but enhanced rent was neither paid nor deposited, thus, on both the counts his ejectment petition deserved to be accepted on the ground of default. On the issue of personal need, his contention was that house in dispute is required by him for his personal need for business purposes. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent, submitted that it was not proved on record that the parties agreed to enhance the rent @ 25%; that the ejectment petition was vague with regard to period of default that when the petitioner refused to accept the monthly rent, the respondent started depositing it with the Treasury after obtaining permission from the learned Rent Controller; that no default was ever committed by the respondent and that since the house is being used for residential purposes, therefore, it cannot be got vacated for commercial purposes, moreso, when the petitioner did not file any application under section 11 of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (VI of 1959) for conversion of property from residential into non-residential.
4. We have heard the petitioner in person, learned counsel for respondent No,1 and examined the available record. As regards the issue of default, upon examination of the contents of ejectment petition, we found that the petitioner stated that respondent had been paying rent since January, 1991 Ga Rs,500, however, it is not clear as to when she allegedly stopped payment of rent to the petitioner. It appears to be the case of the petitioner that in January, 1991 a demand was made to respondent to enhance the rent, which was accepted by her, however, she avoided to make the payment of enhanced rent and that the respondent committed default by not enhancing 25% of rent after every three years. Admittedly, there was no written tenancy between the parties neither any other documentary evidence was produced to show that terms and conditions of the tenancy were settled and reduced in black and white. It could not be proved that the rent was payable at the 10th day of each month and enhancement was agreed by the petitioner with effect from January, 1991. Thus in absence of any documentary evidence to prove terms of tenancy in written form, the only conclusion which could be drawn is that the tenancy between the parties was oral. It has rightly been held by the learned High Court that if no specific date is fixed for the payment of rent, it becomes due on the last date of a month. It appears appropriate to reproduce the findings of the learned High Court, which are apt to the facts and circumstances of the case and rightly clinched the matter:-- "Under the law, if no specific date is fixed for payment of rent, it becomes due on the last date of the month and the default can be said to have been committed after 60 days of such last date.
From the receipts, which have been produced by the petitioner, it is established that the rent of each month has been paid within 60 days from the date the rent was due. It may be reiterated that I am not convinced if the rent was payable on 10th day of each month as has been alleged, because there is no positive and direct proof of the same. Besides, the view that there was some agreement for the increase of the rent at the rate of 25% and the conduct of the petitioner reflects about this, is also based upon conjectures of the learned Appellate Court. No such agreement has been established or proved on his behalf by respondent No,3, rather in the ejectment application, it is stated that the petitioner firstly accepted but thereafter evaded. I do not find or the record if the acceptance is established and this constitutes an agreement for the enhancement. Besides, it is the case of respondent No,3 that the rent was not paid since January, 1991 and the petition was filed after 8/9 years thereafter; this also is quite improbable that respondent No,3 should wait for such long period of time to seek the eviction of the tenant, if the enhanced rent was not being paid."
5. As regards, the default in payment of rent for the months of May, 1999, November, 1999, February, 2000 and August, 2001, as pointed out by the petitioner. It is true that the rent of afore-noted months was deposited late by 2/3 days, but it is equally true that it could not be proved that the said default of 2/3 days was either intentional or wilful. Such type of default would fall within the scope of later portion of section 13(2)(i) of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (VI of 1959). Section 13(2) of the Ordinance, 1959, inter alia, provides that even if a tenant commits default in making payment of rent within the scope of section 13(2)(i) of the Ordinance, 1959 the learned Rent Controller has discretion either to accept or reject ejectment petition on the said ground as the word "may" was used in the said provision of law. There is no evidence on record to show that the said default was wilful and deliberate. Had the respondent been depositing the rent under the order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, 1959, the petitioner might be justified in agitating that even default of one day would be fatal for the respondent. In this case the respondent was depositing the rent of her own accord and after getting permission from the learned Rent Controller, therefore, late deposit of rent on a few occasions, during all this long period, would be inconsequential, moreso, when the respondent every time had been depositing rent in lump sum for three months. In view whereof, we are clear in our mind that respondent did not commit any default in making payment of rent and thus the findings of the learned High Court on the issue of default are fair, legal and justified and are not liable to be interfered with.
6. Adverting to the ground of personal need. The petitioner has even admitted before us that he needs the house for business purposes. Admittedly, the house was rented out and is being used for residential purposes; that the petitioner intended to run his business in the premises and that no application under section 11 of the Ordinance was filed by him for conversion of residential property into non-residential. For the said reasons, issue of personal need was rightly decided. All the three Courts concurrently held that the disputed house cannot be got vacated for non-residential purposes and we do subscribe to the findings of the three Courts, which concurrently decided against the petitioner.
7. In the above perspective, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. We see no reasons to reverse the findings of the learned High Court on both the issues, moreso, when the three Courts concurrently decided against the petitioner on the issue of personal need. No misreading or non-reading of the evidence has been pointed out by the petitioner.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition, being devoid of any force, stands dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.