' By way of this writ petition, the judgments dated 31.1.2013 and 12.4.2014, respectively passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent), Rajanpur and the learned Additional District Judge, Rajanpur have been called in question.
2. Through the above mentioned earlier judgment, the ejectment petition filed by the Respondents No. 3 & 4, against the petitioner, in respect of the shop fully described in the petition has been accepted and eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question has been ordered. Whereas, through the above said other judgment, an appeal preferred by the petitioner, challenging the above mentioned judgment of the learned Special Judge (Rent), Rajanpur has been dismissed.
3. The facts in short are that the Respondents No. 3 & 4 had filed an ejectment petition, against the petitioner, in respect of a shop fully described in the petition. In the said matter, the petitioner appeared and filed application for leave to contest the ejectment petition, which was allowed. The learned Special Judge (Rent) through order dated 25.2.2011 had directed the petitioner to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month till 10th of each following month, in the Court. The petitioner had failed to comply with the said order, hence the learned Special Judge (Rent) through the judgment dated 31.1.2013 had accepted the ejectment petition, with a direction to the petitioner to vacate the disputed shop within a period of 30 days. Against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal which for hearing came before the learned Additional District Judge, Rojhan, (Camp at Rajanpur), from where the judgment dated 12.4.2014 was pronounced and the appeal was dismissed.
4. Consequently, the instant writ petition has been preferred, with the contention and the grounds that the judgments of both the learned Courts below being against the record and the law on the subject are not sustainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his arguments in the above mentioned lines, whereas the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 3 & 4 has vehemently opposed the petition.
6. Arguments of both the sides have been heard and the record has been perused.
7. The record shows that when leave to contest was granted to the petitioner, the learned Rent Tribunal had passed the order dated 25.2.2011, whereby directed the petitioner to pay the rent of the shop in question at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month, in the Court till 10th of each following month. The said order was as per Section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, which empowered the Rent Tribunal to make such like order. The said provision reads as under:- "Payment of rent and other dues pending proceedings.--
(1) If an eviction application is filed, the Rent Tribunal, while granting leave to contest, shall direct the tenant to deposit the rent due from him within a specified time and continue to deposit the same in accordance with the tenancy agreement or as may be directed by the Rent Tribunal in the bank account of the landlord or in the Rent Tribunal till the final order.
(2) If there is a dispute as the amount of rent due or rate of rent, the Rent Tribunal shall tentatively determine the dispute and pass the order for deposit of the rent in terms of subsection( 1).
(3) In case the tenant has not paid a utility bill, the Rent Tribunal shall direct the tenant to pay the utility bill.
(4) If a tenant fails to comply with a direction or order of the Rent Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal shall forthwith pass the final order."
8. A plain reading of the above mentioned section, clearly indicates that the Rent tribunal not only has a power to pass an order directing the tenant for deposit s of the rent due, within a specified time and continue to deposit the same, in the Bank' account of the landlord or in the Rent Tribunal, till the final order is passed in the ejectment petition, but if tenant fails to comply with the above mentioned direction to forthwith pass the final order. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the judgments titled "Javed Masih and others vs. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others" (2010 SCM R 795). "Muhammad Arshad Khokhar vs. Mrs. Zohra Khanum and others" (2010 SCM R 1071), "Muhammad Naseer vs. Sajid Hussain" (2009 SCM R 784). "Waheed Ullah vs. Mst. Rehana Nasim and others" (2004 SCM R 1568), "Muhammad Nazir vs. Saeed Subhani" (2002 SCM R 1540). "Muhammad Ashraf vs. Qamar Sultana (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 228). "Amin and others vs. Hafiz Ghulam Muhammad and others" (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 549).
9. In the situation in hand, admittedly, the petitioner has failed to comply with the above mentioned, direction, made by the learned Rent Tribunal, towards the above said deposit of the rent, in the above stated manner. Even today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that in consequence of the above mentioned direction, till date, the petitioner has not deposited any amount.
10. Sub-section (4) of Section 24 above is mandatory. When default in deposit of the rent, by the petitioner, as directed under the above mentioned provision was proved and admitted on the record, there was no other option for the Rent Controller except to pass the judgment dated 31.1.2013 and accept the ejectment petition.
11. As the above mentioned judgment pronounced by the learned Rent Tribunal was demand of the situation, as well as the law, hence the learned Appellate Court had rightly decided the appeal and dismissed it through the judgment dated 12.4.2014.
12. The concurrent judgments, passed by the two learned Courts below did not suffer from any legal infirmity or defect, hence warrant no interference by this Court in constitutional jurisdiction.
13. Resultantly, the writ petition in hand being devoid of any force and merit is dismissed.
(R.A.) .