ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Through this petition the Provincial Govern--ment seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 26-1-1982, dismissing its writ petition in a rent matter.
2. The facts leading to the present petition are briefly that Hafiz Noor Muhammad, respondent/landlord had let out his house to petitioner No. 2 for running a school was, however, nationalised in 1972 and the petitioner (Province of Punjab through Secretary Education) became the tenant. The petitioner paid the rent to the respondent/landlord for a period of 9 months (i. e.
From October, 1972 to May, 1973), at the rate of Rs. 250, instead of Rs. 450, p. m. And thereafter failed to pay any rent whatsoever with the result that by June, 1977, the unpaid rent accumulated to Rs.
2,5,000. The respondent/landlord was thereon constrained to file an application for petitioner's ejectment under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance on the ground of default. But to defeat the proceedings the tenant/Government requisitioned the property in question. The learned Rent Controller consequently felt helpless and dismissed the application on 25-5-1978, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The respondent/landlord, however, challenged the order of requisition in the High Court through Writ Petition (No. 2872/78) which was accepted by the High Court on 19- 2-1979, with the following observation:- "the educational institution was already operating in these premises and in these circumstances there could hardly be any requirement of requisition. Obviously, the requisition order has been passed to defeat the proceedings filed by the petitioner before the Rent Controller in which he was sure to succeed since the case of default was not denied in the written statement. In these circumstances, the object of requisition was to defeat the provisions of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction' Ordinance, 1959, and to defeat the rights of the petitioner to get the relief against the default from that authority. The requisition being for an extraneous consideration was clearly mala fide."
In the meanwhile the respondent/landlord had also filed an appeal against the order, dated 25-5- 1978 passed by the Rent Controller dismissing his ejectment application. By his order dated 23-4- 1975, the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller on the ground that the requisitioning order had since been declared to be without lawful authority by the High Court and remanded the case to the Rent Controller for decision on merits.
The only material issue framed in the case was whether the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of the rent. 7 he learned Rent Controller found by its order dated 12-1-1980, that the petitioner was a defaulter; decided this issue in favour of the respondent/landlord and ordered the tenants (petitioner's)from the premises in question. The petitioner Government filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 14-10-1981. It then challenged the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge before the High Court through a writ petition which too, was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
Still not being satisfied the petitioner Government has come up to this Court through the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. The only ground urged by the learned counselfor the petitioner before us was that there was no wilful default in payment of rent because, according to the practice of the Department, a bill has to be prepared and presented for passing to the Audit Office. But the Audit Office insists on a certificate from the Excise & Taxation Department showing the Assessed Annual Rented Value of the premises in question being submitted along with the bill, And since the respondent/ landlord failed to supply a copy of such a certificate the petitioner paid him rent at the rate of chart 50% per month for about 9 months. But as the certificate was still not supplied by the respondent. The petitioner/defendant in accordance with its usual practice, withheld the payment of the rent altogether.
4. We have considered this contention and have also gone through the judgment of the three Courts below before which the same contention had been urged unsuccessfully. We must express our surprise at the stand taken by the petitioner. It is evident, as observed by the learned Courts below that there is nothing in section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance which makes any distinction between a private tenant and a Government Department as a tenant. The Government Departments are required to pay rent to the landlord like any other private tenant and would be equally liable to ejectment on default in payment of rent in accordance with law. As tenants, a Government Department and a private citizen are both obliged to tender rent to the land-lord.
Similarly both are liable to ejectment on default of payment of the rent in accordance with law. It is not open to the Government Department to take the premises on lease and impose conditions of its own on the landlord as in the present case. It is required to pay him the rent and in doing so' the Department is doing him no favour, as it is their duty, in law, to tender rent to the landlord. The fact that the building had been hired to run a school makes it all the more obligatory on the respondents to have exercised greater vigilance in paying the rent in time.
We are of the view that the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in ordering the eviction of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, we agree with the structure passed on Petitioner No. 1 by the Rent Controller and the appellate Court to the effect that Petitioner No. 1 had acted mala fide in getting the building requisitioned to avoid the consequences of its own negligence which is supported by the view expressed by Mr. Justice Aftab Hussain, while setting aside the order of requisition.
For the foregoing discussion we dismiss the petition with costs throughout.