MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. - This Constitution petition is directed against the orders dated 13.10.2010 and 05.07.2011 passed by the learned respondents Nos 7 & 8 respectively.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos. 1 to 5 filed an ejectment petition against Tahir Sohail, brother of the present petitioner for his ejectment from a shop No. 13 situated in Basement Ittefaq Plaza Chowk Yadgar City Sheikhupura after adopting the entire lawful process available, yet the said respondents did not join the proceedings and he was proceeded against ex parte on 13.01.2009. However, on his application the ex parte proceedings were set aside, the order dated 13.01.2009 was recalled subject to payment of cost of Rs. 200/-. Subsequently, the said defendant/respondent did not file the written statement and his right for filing the written statement was struck off on 31.01.2009 and ex parte order for his ejectment was passed presumed to be ex parte order even at this stage.
3. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside the ejectment order on the ground that the shop in dispute was in his possession under the rent deed dated 03.10.2003, whereby the respondent agreed to allow the petitioner to retain the possession of the suit land? Against rent of Rs. 1000/- per month. It was also mentioned in the purported rent deed that Rs. 2,00,000/- was given to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 as an advance money.
Therefore, respondents had no right to file this ejectment petition against the stranger (his real brother) and by concealing this fact, they obtained the ex parte decree with the collusion of the petitioner's brother, respondent No. 6. Application was heard by the learned Rent Controller and after going through the record of the case and providing the opportunity of hearing to the parties, dismissed the same and in appeal, the present petitioner faced the same consequences. Now through this Constitution petition before this Court impugned the orders of both the learned respondents Nos. 7 & 8.
4. During the course of arguments, it is found that the petitioners had not enhanced rent for the last ten years and according to him, he has been paying the rent Rs. 1000/- per month since 2003.
5.Without dilating upon the merits of the case and purported Rent deed executed between the parties has been alleged tb be forged by respondents Nos. 1 to 5, the petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 17,820/- within ten days. This amount was calculated on the direction of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner by applying the formula of enhancement of 25% after every three years in rent as provided under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The petitioner is also granted time for handing over the possession of the vacant shop till 31.12.2012 with the condition that he will pay the future rent (June) @ Rs. 5000/- per month. The petitioner is directed to hand over the possession of the vacant shop on or before 31.12.2012.
5. With this settlement, this Petition stands disposed of.