This second rent appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2010 passed by Mr. Aziz Ullah, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby the order of eviction passed against the appellant on 19.5.2010 by Raja Jahanzaib Akhtar, learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore was maintained.
2. The respondent instituted petition under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on various grounds which was contested and the learned Rent Controller on 13.10.2006 passed an order under Section 13(6) of the said Ordinance (ibid) directing the respondent to deposit the rent from January, 2005 to onward at the rate of Rs. 10,373/- per month and also past rent from January, 2005 to September, 2006 total amount of Rs. 1,96,087/- before the next date of hearing and further directed that under Section 5-A of the said Ordinance, the automatic increase in the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/- shall be paid in accordance with law. Later on, the appellant failed to comply with the direction of the learned Rent Controller who proceeded to pass an eviction order on 19.5.2010 which order was maintained by the learned first appellate Court vide impugned order. Both the orders have been assailed in the instant appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent had amended his ejectment petition with the permission of the Court by which whole complexion of the ejectment petition was changed but no right to file the amended reply was granted to the appellant; that an Issue No. 1 regarding default was framed by the trial Court thus, the eviction of the appellant without recording evidence on the said issue could not be passed and that both the Courts below did not apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the appellant failed to comply with the orders of the learned Rent Controller dated 13.10.2006 by not depositing the increased rent under Section 5-A of the Ordinance as directed in the said order as well as the rent for the period from January, 2005 to January, 2008 was also not properly complied with, as such, the orders of eviction recorded by the learned Rent Tribunal and maintained by the learned first appellant Court are proper and in accordance with law.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and record has been examined.
6. It is not a question of amendment of the ejectment petition and refusal to grant opportunity to file amended reply. It is a' matter of the compliance of the order of the Court dated 13.10.2006. The learned Rent Controller had candidly directed tile appellant to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,96,087/- for the period of January, 2005 to on wards and also to pay the increased rent under Section 5-A of the Ordinance (ibid). The appellant did not comply with the direction and thus, face the eviction order According to the provision of Section 5-A added through Ordinance VIII of 1990, the tenant was required to increase the rent automatically at the rate of 25 % after lapse of every three years. The appellant did not increase the rent nor paid the same to the respondent till 19.5.2010 when his order of eviction was recorded as period of three years had lapse in January, 2008 (fresh period of three years has also elapsed in January, 2011) where-after as per direction of the Rent Controller it has to be increased at the rate of 25 % and is to be paid to the respondent.
According to the language used in Section 13-A of the Ordinance, on failure of the tenant to comply with the direction of the Rent Controller recorded under said section, the Court has to proceed forthwith and record the order immediately. In view of this legal position, the Court had rightly proceeded forthwith on noticing that the order dated 13.10.2006 was not complied with in its letter and spirit which order does not suffer from any illegality. Similarly, the learned first appellate Court did not commit any illegality by maintaining the order of the learned Rent Controller. The orders are accordingly maintained as such.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed having no merit with costs. The appellant is allowed two months' time for handing over the vacant possession of the rented premises to the respondents.