' SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---This second rent appeal is directed against order dated 2-6-2010 passed by Ms. Shahida Saeed, learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, whereby she maintained the ejectment order dated 19-11-2009 passed by Mr. Zahid Husasin Bukhtiar, learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore.
2. The parties have come to the Court in the second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation Javaid Fazzil filed a petition under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the respondent seeking his ejectment from the Shop No,257, Ground Floor, Pakistan Cloth Market, Chowk Old Kotwali, Lahore on the ground of default in the payment of rent and sub-letting.
The petition was resisted by the respondent resulting into dismissal of the ejectment petition on 16- 9-2006 by Ms. Asma Tehseen, learned Rent Controller, Lahore. An appeal was preferred against that order, which was accepted by Bushra Zaman, Addl. District Judge, Lahore vide judgment dated 15-8-2008 and the case was remanded to the learned Rent Controller for decision on Issue No,1 in respect of default in the payment of rent afresh.
3. After remand the matter was taken up by Mr. Zahid Hussain Bukhtiar, learned Special Judge (Rent), Lahore, who vide his order dated 19-11-2009 accepted the ejectment petition holding that the default in the payment of rent was proved. The tenant/respondent feeling aggrieved by the acceptance of the ejectment petition challenged the same in the first appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court and the findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed in respect of the ejectment of the respondent.
4. The tenant Haji Bashir Ahmed, during the pendency of the case died and was represented by his legal heirs, who feeling aggrieved by the order of the Courts below have assailed the same in the instant second appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in some of the rent deposit receipts the name of the landlord was inadvertently not mentioned in the relevant column but the respondent had withdrawn the rent from the Treasury, as such the findings of default in the payment of rent.
Recorded by both the Courts below are illegal. He further submitted that mere wrong mentioning of the name of the landlord in the rent deposit receipts does not constitute a wilful default, as such he is not liable to be ejected.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the wrong mentioning of the name of the landlord in the rent deposit receipts is not the compliance of the order of the Rent Controller passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance ibid, as such the appellant is liable to be ejected. He further contended that by withdrawing the rent form the Treasury it does not amount to waiving the right to contest the issue as the default stood proved against the tenant for the non- compliance of the order of the Rent Controller passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance ibid. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case-law in support of his contention.
7. I have given my anxious thoughts to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and also examined the record with their assistance. The case law has also been examined minutely. In the case of Begum Capt. Mirza. Ghulam Sarwar and another v. District Judge, Jhelum and others 1987 SCMR 25 it was held that the withdrawal of the rent deposited by the tenant does not amount to waive of landlord rights to move for striking off tenant's defence for non-compliance of order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance ibid. Same principle was laid down in the case of Saleem Ahmad v.
Addl. District Judge and others (1992 CLC 1531), Muhammad Shabbir v. Haji Ghulam Sabir (1987 CLC 1189), Mst. Bachi Bhai v. Ghulam. Abbas (PLD 1972 Karachi 278). On the point of single default the case of Messrs Crescent Publicity Services v. S.M. Younas and others (1980 SCMR 779), Khadim Hussain v. Nisar Ahmad 2003 SCMR 1580 are relevant. These judgments are relevant in the instant case to determine the fact that the rent for the month of January was deposited on 20-2-2003 as is evident from Exh.R.3. There is no escape for the appellant that he is a defaulter in the payment of rent in view of this receipt alone. Another factor, which prevailed upon the opinion of the learned Courts below are wrong mentioning of the name of the landlord in the challan form prepared for the purpose of deposit of rent in the Treasury. In the case in hand there are several rent receipts appended with this appeal, which show that the name of the landlord was not correctly written therein. In this situation, it cannot be treated as legal tender of the rent by the tenant to the landlord, as such the same cannot be taken into consideration. The case of Haji Allah Ditta v. Mst.
Shehzadi Balqees and another (1980 SCMR 41), Khawaja Ghulam Mustafa v. Mian Waqar Ahmad (PLD 1980 SC 9), Malik Manzoor Ahmad v. Sardar Muhammad (1991 CLC 877) and Qari Abdul Rehman and 6 others v. Jamaluddin and another (2000 SCMR 226) are relevant on the fact of wrong mentioning of the name of the landlord in the challan form. Keeping in view this legal position on the record, this Court has no option except to concur with the findings of the Courts below holding the appellant as a defaulter in the payment of rent.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal having no merits is dismissed with costs. The appellant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises from 15 days from the date of this order.