' This petition has called in question the order dated 25-11-1980 passed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby he set aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the ejectment petition.
2. In her application for ejectment the landlady Dr. Miss T. Ali Muhammad contended inter alia that the respondent was a defaulter and had failed to pay rent since 1st of January, 1979. It was, however, maintained that the respondent was otherwise a habitual defaulter. The contention was denied by the respondent, and it was contended that the petitioner refused to receive rent when it was presented or tendered to her for more than one occasion ; and that ultimately when the respondent found that the petitioner was again making attempts for the eviction of the respondent he remitted the rent for the months of January and February through money order, but the petitioner refused to receive it. There was, therefore, no course open to the respondent but to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller.
3. On the point of default the Rent Controller relied on the money order coupon (Exh. R/I) for the month of January and February, 1979 and observed that the payment was made out of time. The amount was said to be remitted on 28-3-1979 and refused by the petitioner landlady on 1-4-1979 and it was, therefore, held that rent being payable in advance had to be paid or tendered within 15 days, and the same having not been done in time, the default was proved, as a result of which the respondent tenant was held liable to be ejected, and he was thus ordered to vacate the premises within one month. In appeal the learned appellate authority took a different view and observed that the rent-note was executed for 11 months only and that period had since expired. Therefore, there being no agreement in force the rent could be validly paid within 60 days of its falling due. It was concluded that the rent of January and February, 1979 paid on 1-4-1979 was well within time and the respondent was not a defaulter. The appeal was allowed and the ejectment petition was dismissed.
4. It is not denied that a rent note was executed between the parties on 20-7-1961 and that the shop in dispute was rented initially for a period of 11 months ending on 30-6.1962. The rent per month as originally fixed was Rs, 300 and according to the petitioner the same was increased to Rs, 450 p m. Sometimes in the year 1977. It is, therefore, very much clear that the lease for a fixed period came to an end on expiry of the agreed period unless fresh terms were settled mutually by the lessor and the lessee for the purposes of keeping the lease in force. It is laid down in Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdullah (I) that as the rights and liabilities of the respondent are governed exclusively by the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), the question of the amount of rent due from him has to be determined in accordance with the .Provisions of section 13
(2) (i) of the said Ordinance. Under this clause a tenant has to pay the rent due from him "within fifteen days of the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord, or in the absence of any such agreement within sixty days from the period for which the rent is payable".
The words "the agreement of tenancy" mean an agreement which is in force and not an agreement which has expired and is dead. In that case the tenant had deposited with his landlord a sum of Rs, 1,000 as security for the timely payment of rent and the landlord had by then not returned the security deposit and it was held that the landlord was no
(1) F L D 1980 SC 298 ' doubt entitled to deduct the rent and the electricity charges before returning this amount, but after deducting these charges the amount lying with him far exceeded Rs, 600. Applying the circumstances to the instant case it can safely be said that enhancement of rent from Rs, 300 to Rs, 450 per month with the concurrence of the parties had the effect of novation of the original contract as provided by section 62 of the' Contract Act (IX of 1872), and the parties of the rent note agreed to alter the contract, and particularly in respect of payment of rent to substitute a new contract for it, with the result that the original contract was no more required to be performed. By the alteration it was not only the quantum which changed its shape but the mode of payment an d also the conditions under which to make the payment stood substituted. The provision that rent was payable in advance, therefore, no more existed and the tenant was at liberty to pay rent within sixty days. Thus the rent for the months of January and February could conveniently be paid or tendered till 1-4-1979. The remittance on 28-3-1979 was, therefore, a valid tender in the eye of law.
The learned Additional District Judge was in the circumstances justified in holding that the respondent was not a defaulter, and such a finding, however erroneous, was final and could not be interfered with in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is settled that where a Court or a tribunal has jurisdiction and it determines that matter, it cannot be said that it acted illegally or with material irregularity merely because it came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law. This is based on the broad principle that when there is jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, then there is jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and the fact that the decision is incorrect does not render the decision without jurisdiction.
5. It goes without dispute that the petitioner is the landlady and the respondent is a tenant of the shop in dispute by virtue of a rent deed dated 20-7.1961, which after lapse of 11 months as stipulated in the document, had expired and was dead, and only the relationship of landlady and the tenant existed between the parties for the purposes of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance.
Even if the lease was held over, the main stipulation regarding payment of rent was changed in the year 1977 and the time of payment also stood changed.
6. There was an assertion that tenant was a habitual defaulter, meaning thereby that there was not only a default as specified in the petition, but in the near past he had also been making delays in the payment of rent. It was tried to argue that the learned Additional District Judge did not advert to this aspect and had failed to give a finding in that respect. The argument has no force. No doubt the petitioner gave a hint in her petition that the respondent tenant was a habitual defaulter but it was not seriously made a ground for ejectment.. The petitioner banked on the default allegedly for the months of January and February, 1979 and that was all. This aspect was taken note of by the learned Additional District Judge and it was found that the respondent did not make a default.
' For the reasons aforementioned there is no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.