1. The only contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller is bad to law as he was not heard and no opportunity was given to him to adduce his evidence. On the last date of hearing he had taken time to produce documents including court diary to substantiate the said plea, Today he has filed an uncertified copy of court diary.
2. The appellant was ordered on 16th February, 1978 .To deposit rent from July, 1975 to January, 1978 for 31 months, amounting to Rs. 1, 085 before 30th March, 1978. He was further ordered to go on depositing the future monthly rent at the same rate from February, 1978 before 15th of each calendar month till the decision of the case. The appellant deposited the arrears within time but the future rent, i.e, for the month of February, was deposited in Court on 20th March, 1978 instead of 14th, March. The diary-sheet produced by the learned counsel . Does not support the contention that he was not heard. The fact is that on 16th April, 1978 an application under section 13 (6) was filed by the respondent's advocate that the rent for the month of February, 1978 was not deposited in time copy whereof was supplied to the appellant's Advocate and. The case was adjourned for hearing of application to 21st May, 1978. On 21st May, 1978 appellant and his counsel were called but were found absent. Nazir's report was called and the case was put of to 27th May, 1978 for bearing of the said application. On 27th May, 1978 the parties' counsel were present. Nazir's report had been received but the counsel for the appellant stated that his client will file objections. The Rent Controller did not grant further time to the appellant's counsel and after bearing the respondent's counsel allowed the application on the subsequent day.
3. The appellant `filed an application for setting aside the .Order dated 28th May, 1978 which was dismissed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 20th December, 1978. The appellant took up the matter in an appeal before the Additional District Judge both against the order dated 28th. May, 1978 as well as dated 20th December, 1978 which too was dis--missed by the appellate Court, which judgment is impugned herein in this appeal.
4. On the facts as they appear by the diary sheet produced by the learned counsel it cannot be said that he was not given an opportunity to be heard in the matter. In fact the matter was adjourned for more than one date for the purpose but he did not file any objection to the said application. This contention is, therefore, incorrect.
5. The learned counsel further contends that the order of the learned Rent Controller was essentially and effectively complied with inasmuch as he had deposited the arrears of rent as well as the rent for the future month. But I find that the contention is correct to the extent of arrear only and not for the future months anti there is no explanation for the same. Both the Courts below have not agreed with the contention of the learned counsel.
6. Mr. Abrar Hassan further contends that the learned Rent Controller was bound to finally determine the rent payable by the appellant to the respondent. This contention too has no force as the matter has been decided under section 13 (6) wherein the only issue before the Rent Controller was whether the order passed for deposit of rent has been duly complied with or not. No other contention was raised before me.