This second appeal is directed against the order dated 12th November, 1977 whereby the learned.
Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Rent Controller striking of the defence of the appellants and ordering the respondents landlords to be put in possession forthwith.
2. In the course of hearing the dispute, the learned Rent Controller directed the appellants under section 13 (6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1140.60 by 30th March, 1977 and continue depositing future rent at the rate of Rs. 30 per month before 15th of each succeeding month. The learned Rent Controller found' from the treas--ury-challans that rent was deposited by one Muhammad Akram who was neither a tenant nor a party to the proceedings. According to him a payment made by a third person though presuming himself to be a tenant alongwith others was not in compliance with the order passed under section 13 (6) of the Ordinance. In this respect the case Khalifa Muhammad Ibrahim alias Khalifa Zariwala v. Mst. Sherin Begum and others (1968 SCMR 941) was followed. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge held the same view and observed that Muhammad Akram who deposited the amount and Muhammad Umar for the benefit of whom the rent was deposited did not figure anywhere. The tender of rent was considered not in accordance with the order of the Rent Controller. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
3. It comes on record that Muhammad Akram is the uncle of the tenants and claims himself to be a joint tenant with them but that respondents-landlords do not recognise him as such. The Rent Controller passed the order on 24th February, 1977 to deposit rent amount--ing to Rs. 1.140.30 from 1st December, 1973 to 31st January, 1977 at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. The receipts produced on record show that Muhammad lkram Qureshi through Javedul Haq deposited rent at the rate of Rs.
23 every month from December, 1974. In the first few receipts the payee's name and the description of the property in respect of which the amount is paid are not shown. However, from April, 1974 onwards the name of Muhammad Umar Guardian is mentioned. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the particulars given in the receipts were sufficient to show that rent was deposited by Muhammad Akram Qureshi and Javedul Haq Qureshi in respect of the house in dispute in favour of Muhammad Umar who happened to be the guardian of the minor landlords.
The learned counsel further contended that it is a sufficient compliance of the order although rent may have been paid even by a stranger.
4. The landlords in the instant case are Waris Iqbal and Zahid Iqbal minots who were represented by Muhammad Umar Mirza as their next --friend. There are seven tenants including Javedul Haq, but Muhammad Akram Qureshi does not figure anywhere. The house which is rented is described in particular as No. S. I1I-10-S-32. Abkari Road, Anarkali, Lahore. It is pertinent to note here that none of the particulars are given in the receipts. It cannot be inferred in any case that the deposit of rent indicated in the receipts has any connection with the rent required by the appellants to deposit by a particular date. So much so. The rate of rent of the house was Rs. 30 whereas every month Rs. 23 were deposited so as to give an impression that it did not relate to the house in dispute. 1t appears, that the landlords, if they are found entitled to receive the arrears, cannot get the amount from the treasury because of the absence of proper particulars shown in the receipts.
5. It is, therefore, evident that besides what has been laid down in Muhammad Ibrahim's case, the appellants have failed to show that they have actually deposited any rent in respect of the house in dispute in favour) B of and in the name of the respondents.
6. It has been argued that the property was evacuee in character and no order for deposit of rent could be made unless it was shown that a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) was served on the appellants, and that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established between the parties. These objections should have been raised at the earliest but since there is nothing on record at present, they cannot be entertained in second appeal.
7. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.