' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner has assailed the vires of judgment and decree dated 21-1- 2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Taxila, whereby an appeal filed by him against the order dated 3-1-2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief as emerge on perusal of the record are that the respondents filed an ejectment petition seeking eviction of the respondents from two shops and one "Bathik" fully described in the head-note and para No,1 of the petition (hereinafter called the rented premises). It was contended that the respondents obtained the rented premises; on monthly rent of Rs,5000 through rent deed dated 12-10-2000. He paid the advance rent for two years as per terms embodied in the rent deed but thereafter, started paying rent on monthly basis under mutual agreement. It was contended that from January, 2005, he did not pay the rent and was a defaulter. It was urged that after January, 2007, the rate of rent was Rs,6600 per month after 25% increase and finally from January, 2010, it was Rs,93750 per month after 25% increase. They asserted that a sum of Rs, 5,01,750 was due from him till institution of the petition. The petitioner admitted the execution of the rent note and payment of the rent till January, 2005 but contended that thereafter he learnt that in fact one Mehfooz Elahi was the actual owner of the property so he started paying rent to him and also executed the rent deed in his favour on 10-1-2008 and as such is not a defaulter.
3. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 3-12-2011 directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent and also deposit the monthly rent till final disposal of the petition. He sought extension due to demise of a close relative but then did not deposit the rent and contended that the same was not due from him as he had paid the rent to Mehfooz Elahi, who was lawful owner of the rented premises. The learned Special Judge (Rent) vide order dated 3-1-2012 directed the petitioner to vacate the premises. He filed an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed through impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no doubt the petitioner was a tenant under the respondents but subsequently the property was purchased by one Mehboob Elahi so he became his tenant and started paying rent to him w,e,f, January, 2005 but the learned Special Judge (Rent) ignored the sale deed in favour of said Mehboob Elahi and the rent note executed between the petitioner and said landlord so the order to deposit the arrears or monthly rent was totally illegal and non-compliance of the same did not warrant the penal action; that the contentions raised by the petitioner required framing of the issues and recording of the evidence but the learned Special Judge (Rent) decided the matter in a slipshod manner and the learned ADJ also failed to rectify the illegality committed by him.
5. It is an admitted fact that the possession of the rented premises was taken by the petitioner through a duly executed rent note in favour of the respondents Nos.3 and 4. Admittedly, he has been paying rent for the period of five years. The sudden stoppage of the same on the basis of some sale deeds by a third person in favour of Mehboob Elahi was totally an illegal act. The copy of sale deed in favour of Mehboob Elahi shows that he had purchased the plot measuring 05-marlas in Mauza Ghailah, Tehsil Taxila, whereas the rented premises comprises of two shops and one "Bathik". The alleged lease agreement between the petitioner and Mehfooz Ali executed on 13-1-2011 is only an attempt to avoid the consequence of the default committed by him. Under Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a tenant is estopped from denying the title of the person from whom he obtained the immovable property on rent. After order of the learned Special Judge (Rent), he was under obligation to deposit the arrears and monthly rent so contumacious non- compliance of the order stands established on taking the false plea of payment of rent to Mehfooz Elahi, who has nothing to do with the tenancy. He has admitted that he had not paid the rent to the landlord under the agreement so he is a defaulter pure and simple within the meanings of section 15(b) of the Act ibid. The learned Special Judge (Rent) extended the period for deposit of the arrears of rent and monthly rent due to demise of his relative but he did not take benefit of this act of benevolence and failed to deposit the rent as per direction of the Court. The penal action as provided under section 24(4) of the Rented Premises Act, 2009 was clearly attracted in these circumstances. The contention that he has been paying rent to Mehboob Elahi so is not defaulter is only a lame excuse, tailored with sole object to avoid the consequences of his wilful default. A tenant cannot be allowed to take up such pleas in presence of the admitted written rent deed.
Above all, the fixed period of tenancy has also expired about five years prior to the institution of the petition. For the above mentioned reasons, the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) and the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The same don't call for any interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.