1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-In this petition the .Question raised for consideration was whether the petitioner bad committed wilful default in the payment of rent. Included in this question was the further question as to what was the rent of the premises in question which the respondents were entitled to clam and the petitioner was under an obligation to pay.
2. The respondents are joint transferees of the first floor of the premises in dispute under a Provisional Transfer Order dated the 2nd of February 1960, issued by the Settlement Authorities. By virtue of this transfer the petitioner became a statutory tenant of the respondents. The petitioner was a refugee from Amritsar and he had filed a C. H. Form on the 21st of January 1960. It appears, however, that his form was never accepted. The respondents issued three notices under section 30 of the Displac-- ed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, dated the 24th January 1961, 31st July 1961; and 1st December 1962 to the petitioner asking him to pay rent within a certain period but the notices were not complied with. The respondents thereafter instituted ejectment proceedings against the petitioner, on the grounds of default in the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 88 per month from 31-1-1960, and of personal use. There was a dispute as to the rate of rent payable and the Rent Controller by his order dated the 19th August 1963 tentatively fixed the rent at Rs. 33 p.m.
3. And directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears and future rent. On the 9th November 1964, the defence of the petitioner was struck off on the ground of non-compliance with the order dated the 19th August 1963. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal against the order and the first appellate Court by its order dated the 6th January 1966 held that there was no non-compliance.
4. The Court further held that the petitioner had lost the protection under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act inasmuch as he was in arrears of rent of more than 14 months at the time of ejectment proceedings were instituted. Against this order the petitioner filed a second appeal in the High Court, and it was allowed and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller to determine various points including the -question whether there was a bona fide dispute between the parties in respect of the premises as the petitioner had claimed it in his own rights, and further whether it was a case of wilful default in payment of rent. On remand the Rent Controller found that the rent fixed by the Karachi Municipal Corporation was Rs. 88 per month and the same rent was fixed by the Excise and Taxation Department. He also found that the petitioner made wilful default in spite of the notices under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and, therefore, the peti--tioner lost the protection under the section. The Rent Controller, accordingly, ordered ejectment. Against this order the petitioner filed appeal but it was dismissed by the First Appellate Court who concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller. The petitioner, thereupon filed a second appeal before the High Court. The learned Judge of the High Court, concurring with the findings of the Courts below, held that there was no dispute pending at the time the eviction application was filed. He also held that the notices sent to the petitioner asking him to pay rent were valid and that in any event, if there was any defect in the first two notices by reason of the non-mention of the rate of rent, the defect was removed by the third notice which did mention the rate of rent. The learned Judge further held that the Karachi Municipal Corporation and the Excise and Taxation Department had fixed the rent at the rate of Rs. 88 per month. The learned Judge said that this was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The petitioner, however, had claimed that on revision the Additional Commissioner, Karachi by his order dated the 19th June 1969, reduced the rent from Rs.88 to Rs.60 p. m. The petitioner also contended that the latest assessment was made by the local authority and not the Excise and Taxation Department. The learned Judge of the High Court accepted that the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 60 p.m. In regard to they default in payment of rent the learned Judge of the High Court agreed with the concurrent findings of fact on this point by they Rent Controller and the first Appellate Court and held that they petitioner committed wilful default and that there was no ground to condone the delay. The learned Judge of the High Court also found that even the rent admitted by the petitioner was never paid by him.
5. We accordingly find that the disputes between the parties are concluded by findings of fact. There is no legal question involved in the case. The petition is accordingly dismissed.