DORAB PATEL, J.-The premises in dispute, were leased by the respondents to the petitioner by a written agreement which was executed on 29-4-1968, and the rent was to be paid in advance.
Premises appeared to be shop premises in Karachi. According to the documentary evidence produced by the respondents, the petitioner was prompt in payment of rent until August, 1971. Then he committed breach of his agreement to pay rent in advance and paid the rent for the period September to November, 1971 vide Exh.7. The respondents did not immediately take legal proceedings. But the petitioner again committed breach of his promise and the rent for the period from December to February, 1972, was paid in a lump sum after a delay of more than two months.
Having got off with this default the petitioner then did not pay rent for nearly five months, therefore, the respondents filed an eviction application against him in the Court of the Rent Controller for his eviction on the ground that he was in default in the payment of rent and that he had illegally sublet the demised premises.
2. The petitioner contested his eviction and he claimed that there was a practice or agreement between him and the respondents to pay rent at intervals in lump sum. This frivolous plea did not impress the Rent Controller who ordered the petitioner's eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent by his order dated 4-9-1977.
3. The petitioner challenged the Rent Controller's order in an appeal in the District Court, Karachi.
But the Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal agreed with the Rent Controller's findings and also held that the petitioner had illegally sublet the demised premises without the respondent written consent, therefore, on both these grounds he ordered the petitioner's eviction.
4. The petitioner then challenged his eviction in a second appeal in the Sind High Court, but as this appeal was dismissed on 8-12-1980, he has filed to petition for leave.
5. We would first examine the question of default. Mr. Bilal challenged the concurrent findings of the three Courts against the petitioner on the ground that the two rent receipts for the rent of September to November, 1971 and for the rent of December, 1971 to February, 1972 (Exhs. 7 and 8 respectively) were sufficient to prove a practice to pay rent in lump sum and/or to prove that the respondents had agreed to waive the condition in their favour in the lease that the rent was to be paid in advance. This plea has been carefully examined by the learned Single Judge and rejected by him on the basis of the evidence and the law declared by this Court, Having re-examined the evidence and the pleadings, we agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, the more so as this view is supported by the long line of judgments of this Court of which the latest is Abdul Rashid v. Saleh Muhammad (1980 SCMR 506 ).
6. Mr. Noori drew our attention to the fact that both the appellate Courts had further held that the petitioner had illegally sublet the demised premises. That is correct and the view taken by the learned Single Judge is supported by this Court's judgment in Manak J. Mobed and others v. Shah Behram and others (PLD 1974 SC 351).
7. There is no merit whatever in the petition and it is dismissed. However, as the demised premises are used for business, we give the petitioner and all persons claiming through or under him four months time to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondents provided the petitioner continues to pay the monthly rent.