1. ' This first rent appeal has been filed under section 2 of the 1979 Ordinance against the Order dated 23-9-1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Sanghar allowing Rent Application No, 1 of 1979 filed by the Respondent/landlord against the appellants. The rent application was allowed as the defence of the appellants was struck off on account of non-compliance with the tentative order of rent dated 24-9-1978 passed by the Rent Controller. It is admitted by Mr. Hassan Akbar, the learned Asstt. A.-G.
2. Who appears on behalf of the appllants, that the order dated 24-9-1978 of the Rent Controller was not complied with. In these circumstances, an application for striking of the defence of the appellants was filed by the Respondents which was allowed and the appellants were ordered to be ejected. Three paragraphs of the order of the Rent Controller dated 23-9-1981 may be reproduced here: "Learned counsel representing the opponents has not disputed the non-deposit of the rent according to directions by Court but he contended that it was due to the reasons beyond control of the opponents therefore, cannot be treated default in legal sense. According to him rent for the months of December, 1979, February, April and May, 1980 I could not be deposited in time due to handicaps of shortage of budget, non-availability of bill forms and rush of work in Government Treasury office and local branch of National Bank. As regards the rent of June to September, 1980 learned Counsel has contended that delay accrued in payment of rent for these months as budget were received by the opponents late in the end of the September.
3. ' As regards the rent of December, 1979, February, April and May, 1980 the contentions of learned Counsel are inconsistent as on one hand he says there was shortage of budget and on the other hand that delay accrued due to rush of work in Government Treasury and branch of National Bank.
4. Even otherwise no such material has been placed on record which could substantiate these contentions. Same way contentions about the receiving of budget in respect of rent for the month of June to September, 1980 has not been substantiated. Therefore the contentions appear to be nothing but mere pretext.
5. ' Even otherwise the contentions of learned Counsel are not impressing. If the Government or its functionary takes any property _ on rent from a private person, it is their duty to pay the rent regularly just as private party is expected under ordinary law. In this connection law does not make any distinction between a public servant or private individual. On the contrary it is duty of public servant to respect the law, more than other persons. In this respect reference can be made to PLD 1966 (W. P.) Karachi, 214."
6. ' A perusal of the above paragraphs of the Rent Controller's order shows that a proper view has been taken by him. Mr. Hassan Akbar, the learned Asstt. A.G. Contended that notice had to be taken that delay takes place in the payment of bills or rent by Government Departments on account of various reasons which may include shortage of budget, lack of fund, rush of work, non-availability of bill forms etc. I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel that as the tenant is a Government Department therefore a special or different kind of treatment is to be given to such a tenant as compared to ordinary tenants. I do not find any such distinction having been made in the rent laws. In my view the Rent Controller has taken a correct decision and I don't see any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellants.
7. ' It was then contended by the learned Asstt. A.-G. That the premises in question have been acquired by the Government. No such statement was made before the learned Rent Controller nor any document was filed to substantiate this claim which is now being made. Further I find from the memo. Of appeal before this Court iteslf that no such statement has been made on behalf of the appellants. Even the grounds taken in the memo. Of appeal before this Court do not refer this question.
8. ' In these circumstances, I find no merit in this first rent appeal which is dismissed in limine. The appellants, however, are granted time till 37-3-1982 to vacate the premises.