' IJAZ AHMAD, J.---This single judgment will dispose of instant (Writ Petition No,1110 of 2011) along with Writ Petitions Nos.1111 of 2011, 1112 of 2011, 1115 of 2011, 1116 of 2011, and 1117 of 2011, as all have arisen out of the same impugned. Orders.
2. Admit. Notice. The parties are ready to advance their arguments, these will be treated as the notice cases.
3. Respondent No,1/landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner from the rented premises on 28-10-2009. Leave to contest the application was granted vide order dated 20-11- 2009. The Rent Controller, proceeding under section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007, vide order dated 20-10-2010, directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent for the months of September, 2010 to October, 2010 at the rate admitted by the parties till 30-10-2010. The future monthly rent was to be paid before 10th of each month. Arrears of the rent for the months of September and October, 2010 were paid on 21-9-2010 and 20-10-2010. The monthly rent for the month of December, 2010, was paid on 10-12-2010. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 20- 12-2010, on account of the alleged default in payment of the monthly rent for the month of December, 2010, acting under section 24(4) of the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007, accepted the eviction application and directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the rented premises within a period of 60 days from passing of the order. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 13-4-2011.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 20-10-2010, directing the petitioners to pay the monthly rent before 10th of each month includes the whole day till the end of 10th of each month; that even if the delay of one day was caused, the same cannot be termed as wilful defaults which is distinguishable from the technical default. Places reliance on "1980 CLC 848" titled Muhammad Yamin v. Mashroofullah Khan and 1989 MLD 3563" titled Mehdi Zafar v. Mrs.Fauzia Raqueeb. He further argues that in case of misconception suffered by a tenant, the default should be condoned by the Court and the law should be interpreted in favour of the tenant. Places reliance on "1988 CLC 245" titled Dr.Sheikh Fayyaz Anwar v. Sheikh Nemat Ullah and another.
5. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No,1 that in case of a default in payment of the rent, after an order under section 24 ibid, having been passed, the natural consequence should be an order for eviction of the tenant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
7. A question that needs to be resolved is whether the default in payment of the rent by the tenant before the institution of suit is different in effect from the default incurred after an order having been passed under section 24 of the Ordinance ibid. In my view, both the defaults are identical as far their effects are concerned. The default prior to the institution of the eviction application has to be proved by evidence whereas a default post an order under section 24 ibid, requires no proof. It stands proved through the record of the Court. The consequence of both the defaults is the order of the eviction of the tenant. The petitioner has paid the arrears of the Rent for the months of September and October and the monthly rent for the month of November, 2010 in time. He incurred the delay of one day in payment of the rent for the month of December, 2010. The same cannot be termed as wilful default. A person not well versed with the technicalities of law could easily misconceive the order. The delay of one day in depositing the rent as ordered by the learned Rent Controller cannot be termed as wilful default. In coming to this conclusion, I seek support from the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner. My view is also supported by the judgment cited as "1998 CLC 1054 Lahore" titled Muhammad Tariq v. Sardar Khan and 9 others. In order to characterize a default, a wilful default, it has to be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious with full knowledge of its consequences. Any default including the payment of the rent that might have occasioned on account of ignorance accident or compulsion beyond the control cannot be termed wilful. I also rely on 2010 SCM R 1071" titled Muhammad Arshad Khokhar v. Mrs. Zohra Khanum and others and Writ Petition No,1728 of 2009 titled Zhange Guogen v. Mst. Jahanzeba Begum, and others of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, decided on 16-3-2011. This petition is accepted. The orders dated 20-12-2010 and 13-4-2011 passed by the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge, are set aside. The learned Rent Controller shall proceed with eviction, application and decide the same on merits.