' Liaqat Ali, appellant herein, has preferred this appeal under section 5(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ssailing the order, dated 10-5-1975 of the learned Additional District judge, Multan whereby he dismissed his appeal and maintained the order, aced 44-1975 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Multan directing 'is ejectment from the property in dispute.
2. The facts in brief leading to this appeal are that on 24-1-1972 ,'fist. Fardaus Begum respondent had filed an ejectment petition against the appellant from the house in dispute on the ground that the property in dispute was required for her personal use and that the appellant had committed default in making payment of the monthly rent of the property to her and further that he had damaged the same and impaired its value and also that he was nuisance for her and residents of the locality. The application was resisted by the appellant. He denied the factum of respondent being his landlady. Consequently an issue with regard to the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties was framed which after recording evidence of the parties was decided in favour of the respondent and order of appellant's ejectment from the disputed property was passed on 29-11-1972 against him. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order in appeal which was accepted on 24-10-1974 to the extent that the order of ejectment of the appellant was set aside but the finding on the issue of relationship of landlady and tenant was maintained. The case was remanded by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan to the learned Rent Controller with the direction to frame other issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and decide the case in accordance with law.
3. On remand when the file was received by the learned Rent Controller and the case was fixed for 27-11-1974, on an application of the respondent, the learned Rent Controller passed an order under, section (13)6 of the aforementioned Ordinance directing the appellant to deposit arrears of rent w,e,f, 14-10-1971 to 31-10-1974 amounting to Rs, 1,097 by 14-12-1974 and future monthly rent before 15th of each succeeding month and fixed the case for 16-12-1974 for further proceeding. The case was adjourned to 2-1-1975 as the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 2-1-1975 the appellant placed on the record receipt for deposit of Rs, 1,120 and the case was adjourned to 4-1-1975 for further proceedings. On 4-1-1975 the learned Rent Controller held that his order, dated 27-11-1974 was not complied with because the amount of arrears of rent, as directed, was not deposited on or before the date fixed. He struck off the defence off the appellant under section 13(6) and directed his ejectment from the disputed property by allowing one month's time for vacation of property. This order was challenged by the appellant in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned order, dated 10-5-1975 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order the appellant has preferred this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that 14-12-1974 was the last date of deposit and the learned Rent Controller was on leave on that day. The appellant moved an application on the same day seeking extension of time for the deposit of arrears which was placed before another Rent Controller and was rejected by him on the same day. Thereafter he deposited the amount on 16th of December, 1974 (15th being Sunday). It was contended that the appellant did not commit wilful default and the orders of the learned Controller as well as the first appellate authority holding that the amount was deposited, on 18th were wrong.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant had moved an application on 14-12-1974 stating therein that due to his unemployment and illness it was not possible for him to deposit the arrears of rent extending over period of three years by one instalment and sought extension without mentioning the time for deposit of the amount. This application was rejected on the same day holding that it was made on the last date of deposit and without. Mentioning reasonable cause for the same. It is argued that the plea taken up by the appellant in his application, dated 16-12-1974 that the learned Presiding Officer being on leave on 14-12-1974 and for that reason he could not deposit the arrears of rent being contradictory to what he had stated in his earlier application, dated 14-12-1974 established that he had committed wilful default as complying with the order of the Court. He relied on Zafar Qureshi v. Maqsoodul Hassan (1), in support of his submissions.
6. It was next contended by him that the appellant has further committed default in not complying with the order of this Court, dated 11-7-1975 whereby he was directed to deposit the arrears of rent within a period of one month and also continue to deposit future monthly rent before 15th of each month till the disposal of the case. He asserted that the rent for the month of April 1977 was deposited on 16-5-1977 and thereby he committed default of two days.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case. It is clear from the application, dated 14-12-1974 moved by the appellant that he sought extension of time for deposit of arrears of rent due to his unemployment, illness and his inability to deposit the who amount in one installment. He did not plead in that case that he had the requisite amount with him and was ready to deposit the same. Subsequent application moved by him on 16-12-1974 taking up entirely different plea and seeking permission for deposit of the amount shows that he had money with him even on the last date of the deposit viz. 14-12-1974 and thus committed default in complying with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller directing him to deposit the arrears of rent on or before 14-12-1974. Without taking into consideration the subsequent alleged default in depositing the amount of rent before 15-5-1977 the earlier default committed by the appellant is sufficient to uphold the unanimous decision of the learned Rent Controller as well as learned first appellate authority and maintain appellant's eviction from the property in dispute.
' In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.
(1) 1982 SCM R 392