1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This order will dispose of 3 Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. K-107, K- 108 and K-109 of 1971, which are directed against the judgments of a learned Single Judge of the Karachi High Court made in second appeals, whereby the orders of the two Courts below, ordering the eject--anent of the petitioners from the godowns occupied by them respectively as respectively kinder the respondent, who is the sole landlord of all of them, were affirmed.
2. The ejectment proceedings against the petitioners were initiated by the respondent under section 10(2) of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953, as amended in 1962. In each case, the Rent Controller made a direction, ordering tile petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent, if any, and further directed that the future rent for each running month should be paid before the 5th of each succeeding month. The admitted position in each case is that the petitioners deposited the arrears of rent in com--pliance with tile direction of the Rent Controller, and also paid the rent for the month of September 1963, before the 5th of October 1963. However, they committed default in depositing the rent for the month of October 1963, which was not deposited before the 5th of November 1963, as directed, but was deposited on the 6th of November 1963. On account of this default, the Rent Controller struck off the defence of the petitioners, and ordered that the respondent be put into possession of the tenanted premises. The common plea taken by the petitioners before the Rent Controller, in the first instance, was that on account of rush of persons wishing to deposit the rent, the money could not be accepted by the Nazir on the 4th and 5th of November 1963, and had, therefore, to be deposited perforce on the 6th of November 1963. The Rent Controller rejected this plea, holding that as the current rent had to be deposited before the 5th of each month, the petitioners' plea that they had made an attempt to deposit it on the 5th of November 1963, was of no avail. The orders of the Rent Controller were set aside in appeals by the Additional District Judge on the ground that the Rent Controller, who had made the orders, had not been validly appointed.
3. On a further appeal to the High Court by the respondent, the order of the Additional District Judge was set aside, and the appeals were remanded for decision on merits, as in the meanwhile the appoint--ment of the Rent Controller concerned had been validated by a notification. The appeals were then consolidated for hearing before the Additional District Judge, and a request was made it Civil Appeal No. 311/64 for leading additional evidence, which was allowed, and the appellant in that appeal examined Sarwar Hussain, Habibur Rahman and Kalimuddin as his witnesses. The default committed in payment of rent for October 1963, in time was sought to be explained on the ground that the petitioners had gone to the office of the Rent Controller on the 4th of November 1963, with an application to obtain a direction from him to the District Nazir for the deposit of the rent for the month of October 1963, but the Reader of the Rent Controller told them to come the next day as the Rent Controller had left the Court earlier on that day owing to his illness. A further plea was set up that an attempt was made on that very date, i.e., the 5th of November 1963, by the petitioners, to persuade the Nazir of the District Court to accept the rent without the order of the Rent Controller, which he refused to do. The direction of the Rent Controller was, therefore, obtained on the following day, i.e. The 6th of November 1963, and the rent was deposited on the very same day.
4. It is doubtful if the additional evidence led in one appeal could be treated as evidence in all the appeals in the absence of a regular order to that effect. However the learned Single Judge has rightly held that this additional evidence was wrongly admitted, as by this evidence a new plea was sought to be set up and supported by this evidence at the appellate stage. This evidence was also inconsistent with the petitioners' own affidavits filed in the case.
5. Nonetheless, we have examined this additional evidence with the help of the learned counsel for the petitioners. We find that instead of supporting the petitioners' plea, this evidence negatives it. In answer to a question in cross-examination, Habibur Rahman, the first witness, had stated that it was not correct that Mr. Nasir (the Rent Controller) had left his Court earlier on that day i.e. The 4th of November 1963. If this statement is to be accepted, as it should be, there is no valid explanation at all as to why the petitioners failed to obtain the instructions of the Rent Controller on the 4th of November 1963, to deposit the rent on that day.
6. We feel that the learned Single Judge in the High Court has correctly decided the matter, and we see no ground for interference. These petitions are dismissed.