1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-On the 23rd of September, 1965 Muhammad Bakhsh, predecessor of the respondents herein filed an application for the eject--ment of the present petitioner from a portion of the house in dispute under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. In course of the proceedings on the 2nd of Novem--ber, 1970, the learned Rent Controller passed an order for the deposit of the arrears of the rent before the 30th of November, 1970 and also the future rent tentatively assessed by him.
2. But the petitioner failed to comply with the order and accordingly his defence was ordered to be struck off by the Rent Controller on the 6th of January, 1971. His appeal was rejected by the Additional District Judge on the 30th of March, 1971, He also failed in second appeal dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore as also in the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment rejected by the Division Bench of the High Curt on the 11th of April, 1979. This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the 2nd of November 1970, learned Rent Controller in passing the order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,353 on account of arrears of rent for the period from the 23rd of September, 1962 to 22nd of May, 1968 at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem and for the period from 23rd May, 1969 to 31st October, 1970 at the enhanced rate of Rs. 40 per mensem before the 30th of November, 1970 and also to regularly deposit the future monthly rent for the premises at the rate of Rs.40 per mensem before the 5th day of each such succeeding calender month. This order was upheld by the authorities under the Ordinance up to the level of the Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court. In this Court before us the learned counsel raised an objection that both in the petition for ejectment as well as according to the notice sent to the petitioner in the, year 1974, the rent claimed was at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem only and that therefore, the learned Rent Controller was not justified under the law in fixing the tentative rent with effect from 23rd of May, 1968 at the enhanced rate of Rs. 40 per mensem. In this connection however it was admitted before the Courts below and not denied before us that the rent of the premises was in fact enhanced during the pendency of the protracted proceeding on the 16th of May, 1968 in accordance with the latest assessm ent of the property. In the circumstances the learned Rent Controller had taken care to fix the tentative rent for the period from the 23rd of September, 1962 to 22nd of May, 1968 at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem and from 23rd May,1968 upto 31st October, 1970 at the rate of Rs. 40 per mensem which was in accordance with the then latest assessment. The learned counsel however contended that notwithstanding the reassessment and the rights and liabilities of the parties in that behalf, the Rent Controller could not fix the rent even though tentatively at the enhanced rate for the limited period between May,1968 to October 1970, primarily because this was not even mentioned by the respondent in his application filed in 1965 and in his notice said to have been served in 1964. In repelling this contention the High Court observed that it was not denied that if the respondent had placed cogent material in this behalf before the Rent Controller, there was no legal bar to an order having been passed under section 13(6) fixing the rate of rent tentatively in accordance with the latest assessm ent at the time when the relevant order was made in the year 1970. A copy of the latest assessm ent (Exh. P. 8) was duly produced and exhibited in evidence before the Rent Controller on the 30 of July, 1970 and on the same day the statement of the respondent-landlord was recorded on oath wherein he had modified his claim with regard to the rate of the rent on the basis of Exh. P.8 to which the petitioner did not raise any objection at the time. In the opinion of the learned Bench the procedure thus adopted by the Rent Controller was not against law. In spite of this the appellant failed to deposit any rent and his defence was therefore ordered to be struck off. This order was upheld upto the level of the Letters patent Appeal.
4. On the 30th of July 1970, the respondent-landlord was allowed the permission to modify his claim with regard to the rate of rent on the basis of the latest assessment for the property (Exh. P. 8). This amendment was allowed by the Rent Controller, in exercise of thediscretion vested in him under law and there could be no objection raised against it before us at this age. The landlord was entitled in law to charge the rent at the rate fixed in the latest assessment for the property. Likewise there was no bar in the way of the Rent Controller in fixing the tentative rent under section 13(6) of the Ordinance at the revised rate in accordance with the latest assessment. It is noteworthy that the petitioner has failed to pay a single peny towards the arrears and future rent for the premises.
5. He even failed to deposit undisputed arrears of the rent for the period from 23rd of September, 196 to 2nd of May, 1968 at the rate of Rs. 10 per mensem for nearly 17 yea by now.
6. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration we find that this is not a fit case for our interference in these proceedings. This petition has no force and is dismissed.