The respondent, Syed Nazim Hussain made an application for ejectment of the petitioner. Ghulam Hussain, from certain premises. On 5th September, 1979, the Rent Controller, who was seized of the application, directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent from March to July, 1979, at the rate of Rs. 60 per mensem, before the 14th September, 1979. The petitioner, however, failed to deposit rent for the month of March, 1979 before the stipulated date. It was deposited by him long thereafter on 7th October, 1979. Then, on 29th October, 1979, he made an application for condonation of delay in the deposit of rent alleging that he was of the impression that rent for March, 1979 was not to be deposited by him. His plea did not find favour with the learned Rent Controller. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller rejected his application and also, by striking his defence, ordered his eviction. The petitioner preferred an appeal before an Additional District Judge but in vain. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition assailing the orders of the two tribunals below.
2. Mian Nisar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was not aware of the order made on 5th September, 1979 requiring the petitioner to deposit rent for March, 1979 and, therefore, he could not be penalized for not having deposited the same before the date fixed by the learned Rent Controller. In this connection, he invited my attention to the affidavits filed by the petitioner and his counsel.
3. On the other hand, Syed Ijaz Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner and his counsel were present when the order for deposit of rent was made and, therefore, there was no substance in their averments that they were not aware of the said order. He also filed his own affidavit to substantiate his assertion.
4. The order of the learned Rent Controller, dated the 5th September, 1979, clearly shows that the petitioner and his counsel were present when the order relating to deposit of arrears of rent was passed, The plea of the petitioner that he and his counsel were not present at that time is an afterthought inasmuch as the affidavits which have now been submitted -in this Court in support of that plea were not submitted before the learned Rent Controller. These affidavits also stand rebutted by the affidavit put in by learned counsel for the respondent. I am. Therefore, of the view that the order of the learned Rent Controller, dated the 5th September, 1979, represents the correct state of affairs and since according to that order the petitioner and his counsel were present when order for deposit of rent was made. I am unable to agree with learned I counsel for the petitioner that the order relating to deposit of rent was passed at the back of the petitioner and his counsel.
5. The next point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the learned Rent Controller did not afford an opportunity to the petitioner .To substantiate the plea raised by him for seeking condonation of delay and, therefore, the order made by him was violative of the principles of natural justice. In this connection, he invited my attention to Syed Toghan Shah v. Shah Muhammad Mandi Abbas (PLD 1964 Pesh. 101) and Syed Muhammad Akram Shah v. Ch. Ghulam Nabi (PLD 1967 Lah. 957).
6. In reply, it was maintained by learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the assertion made by the petitioner, namely, that he had no knowledge of the order for deposit of rent, there was hardly any occasion to allow him to produce evidence in support of his averment because none except the-petitioner could depose in regard to his state of mind. It was also maintained by learned counsel for the respondent that in cases like the one in hand it was not necessary to afford an opportunity to a tenant to produce evidence in support of his explanation for non-compliance with order relating to the deposit of rent. For this proposition, he placed reliance on Javid labal v.
Rana Muzziffar Khan (1976 SC M R9.).
7. I agree with learned counsel for the respondent that in view of the plea raised by the petitioner there was hardly any need to allow an opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence in - support of his plea which is belied by the record. It has also been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case. Of Javaid Iqbal relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, that it is not necessary to afford a tenant with such an opportunity. The cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention were decided by the High Courts and, for obvious reasons, the view taken by the High Courts cannot be given preference over who has been ruled out by the Supreme Court in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. Therefore with respect, following the Supreme Court ruling, I hold that in the circum. Stances of the present case it was not necessary for the learned Rent Con--troller to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence in support of the explanation offered by him for- not making timely deposit of the rent in dispute.
8. In view of the above discussion, the orders passed by the two tribunals below do not call for any interference. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. The petitioner is allowed four months' time to vacate the premises in question,