1. Necessary and relevant facts leading up to the petition in constitutional jurisdiction, in brief are; respondent No.3 namely, Miss Anwari Begum applied to Rent Controller for eviction of Mrs. Asya, her tenant from the house in dispute fully described in the ejectment petition. Ejectment was sought on the sole ground of default in payment of rent, with effect from 1st of January, 1978. It was pleaded that rent of the premises was Rs.150 per month. Petition was presented on 4-3-1981. Tenant submitted her written statement and pleaded that provisions of section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 have not been complied with. As regards alleged default, it was pleaded that the rent had been paid till the month of January, 1981. On 27-7-1981 Rent Controller proceeded under section 13 (6) of the Rent Ordinance and directed the tenant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.150 per mensem from 1-2-1978 to 31-1-1981 Rs.5,400 till 13-8-1981 and further directed that rent from 1st February, 1981 to 31st July, 1981 (six months) be also deposited by the same date. Tenant was further directed to deposit future monthly rent at the rate given above before the 15th of such succeeding month. On 17-9-1981, Rent Controller formulated following issues:---
(1) Whether respondent has committed default in payment or tender for payment of the rent? O.P.P.
(2) Whether notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance was necessary to be served upon the respondent and the effect of its non-service?
(3) Relief.
2. After issues, Rent application was postponed to 27-10-1981 for petitioners (landlady) evidence.
3. Evidence could not be recorded on the date fixed and the case was adjourned to 23-11-1981 for her evidence. It was also directed that receipts for deposit of rent be also produced on the adjourned date. Since receipts for deposit of rent had not been produced Rent Controller proceeded to strike off the tenant's defence on 23-11-1981. After having struck off the defence, Rent Controller recorded the statement of the counsel of the respondent (tenant), and Mukhtar of the petitioner-landlady.
4. Counsel stated that parties had compromised. Entire rent had been paid including the rent for the month of November, 1981. Special Attorney of the landlady in his statement submitted that rent for 3 years and 11 months at the agreed rate had been received. However, receipt of rent for the month of November a the rate of Rs.200 per month was denied. After statements were r corded, Rent application was adjourned to 24-11-1981 for announcement of judgment. Before the order could be announced, tenant submitted n application pleading adjustment /compromise. It, was submitted that in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, entire arrears of rent had been received by the landlady on the assurance that the ejectment petition shall be withdrawn and necessary instructions for that purpose will be issued to her Advocate. In para. 6, it was specifically pleaded that if the applicant (landlady) appears in Court, states on Holy Quran that no such compromise was arrived at, the matter be decided against the tenant. The Court entertained the application but without calling for the reply from the other side dismissed the same and passed an order of ejectment against the present petitioner directing him to vacate the premises within a period of 15 days. Tenant filed an appeal which was dismissed on 9-5-1984 by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. It is in this background that the petitioner-tenant has invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court with prayer that the impugned orders passed against him be set aside and be declared to have been passed without lawful authority. Petition was admitted to regular hearing on 9-7-1984 and has been placed before me today for final hearing. Mr. Zafar Iqbal Bajwa, Advocate addressed arguments on behalf of the petitioner. I have had not the advantage of hearing arguments from respondent as none has entered appearance on her behalf.
2. It was contended by Mr. Bajwa that the parties had arrived at a Settlement outside the Court and had adjusted their dispute to the satisfaction of the landlady. In terns of the Settlement, the tenant had paid the entire amount of rent due. In result, she was assured that the application pending against her, shall not be processed further and will be withdrawn. Learned counsel contended that the compromise was pleaded in express terms in miscellaneous petition, dated 24-11-1981. It was the duty of learned Rent Controller to call for reply and decide whether the compromise as alleged in the petition was really arrived at between the parties or not. It was also submitted that the petitioner had asked for appearance of the landlady in Court to make statement on Holy Quran about the alleged compromise. This request was only made to show bona fide of the tenant. In any case, it was argued that without deciding on the truthfulness or otherwise of the terms of alleged compromise, Rent Controller could not proceed to strike off tenant's defence. It was also pleaded that the petitioner was in possession of the premises for the past 20 years and when the entire rent had been paid to the landlady in the result of adjustment/ settlement ejectment could not be ordered. After examination of the record and hearing Mr. Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioner, I have felt- persuaded to agree with the submissions raised. Apart from other points urged, this petition can be accepted on the short ground that when tenant had pleaded compromise and payment of rent to the landlady in terms thereof, it was the duty of the Rent Controller to have decided the compromise petition either way before passing a final ejectment order. It is correct that a direction for deposit of rent was issued on 27-7-1.981 and the rent had to be deposited till 13- 8-1981. It is equally correct that before an order striking off defence had been passed, it was alleged that the matter had been settled and entire rent paid. Special Attorney of the landlady had not denied the receipt of arrears of rent. This, gives a clear impression that some compromise /adjustment was made between the parties, terms whereof were required to be ascertained on proper inquiry. Learned counsel, to show petitioner's bona fides has A stated at bar that even if now respondent-landlady were to appear in Court, state on oath (Holy Quran) that alleged compromise was not made, ejectment order may straightaway be passed against his client. In my judgment, when such were the circumstances, learned Rent Controller was bound to hold some inquiry and decide about compromise before proceeding to make final order of ejectment. In this view of the matter I find and hold that the orders directing petitioner's ejectment from the house in dispute on the ground of default in compliance with tentative order dated 27-7-1981, cannot be allowed to stand. Petition accordingly is allowed, orders impugned- are set aside and declared to have been made without lawful authority. Result is, that the case is remitted to learned Rent Controller, Lahore to hold inquiry and decide whether pleaded compromise was really arrived at between the litigating parties and if so, its effect on their rights. As the respondent has not appeared to contest, I make no order as to costs. Petitioner is directed to appear before learned Rent Controller Lahore on 28-11-1985.