' Ejectment Application No, 687 of 1971 was filed before the Rent Controller on 24th March, 1971 by the respondent/landlord for the ejectment of the appellant/tenant on the ground of default and personal use. A preliminary objection had been raised on behalf of the appellant regarding non- service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Preliminary issue was framed and by order, dated 20th May, 1977 it was decided against the appellant. It may be mentioned that notice under section 30, dated 21st November, 1961 had been given and reply was also given by the appellant which is dated 27th November, 1961. Thereafter a tentative rent order was passed on 13th August, 1977. The appellant defaulted in deposit of rent as ordered by the tentative rent order. An application for striking off the defence of the appellant was moved by the respondent, which was allowed by order, dated 19th March, 1980 by the Rent Controller, who struck off the defence of the appellant and ordered his ejectment. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this Rent Appeal. I have heard Mr. Mahfoozul Haq, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ahmed Saeed Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the ejectment application itself was not maintainable and as a consequence the tentative rent order was also illegal. It was submitted that although, notice under section 30 was given in 1961, the appellant complied with it and paid the rent and as such before the filing of the ejectment case a second notice under section 30 should have been given. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court, Afaquz Zobair v. Muhammad Idrees (1) for the proposition that in such
(1) PLD 1978 Kar. 984 ' circumstances a fresh notice of demand is necessary. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the instant case it was necessary for the respondent to serve a second notice of demand upon the appellant, cannot be accepted in the facts of this case. Here section 30 notice was given in November, 1961 and as such the protection available to the appellant was for a period of 6 years from the date of receipt of this notice. The period of protection expired in November, 1967. Ejectment case was filed by the respondent against the appellant in 1971, much after the expiry of the 6 years period of protection. The authority reported in PLD 1978 Kar. 984 would have been of help to the appellant if the ejectment case had been filed before the expiry of the 6 years of protection.
3. According to the evidence on record, the preliminary issue was correctly decided by the Rent Controller. In the facts of this case as the notice had been given in November, 1961 under section 30 of the 1958 Act and the ejectment application was filed in 1971, it was not necessary to serve a second notice under section 30. After the expiry of the 6 years period of protection, remedies under the Rent Restriction Laws became available to the respondent/landlord against the appellant. It is clear that the appellant dafaulted in the deposit rent and did not comply with the tentative rent order, dated 13th August, 1977, passed by the Rent Controller. His defence was rightly struck off by the Rent Controller in the circumstances.
' I find no merits in this appeal. F.R.A. No, 526/80 is dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, granted time till 31st January, 1984 to vacate the premises, subject to payment deposit of rent.