1. ' The appellant Abdul Jabbar is tenant of the respondent in shop No,3, Ground Floor, Plot No,22, Sub- Block 'E', Gole Market, Commercial Area, Nazimabad Karachi No,3. The respondent filed ejectment case No, 272/85 against him on the ground that he had not paid the rent for the months of February, March and April, 1984. The appellant contested the ejectment application contending that he had offered rent to the respondent but he had declined to accept it and the rent was, therefore, remitted to the landlord by money order In May, 1984 and later on the rent was deposited with the Controller. The parties adduced evidence. The respondent filed his own affidavit, whereas the appellant filed his own affidavit and that of one witness Jamil Akhtar. The learned Controller did not accept the plea of tender of rent and passed the impugned order of ejectment.
2. ' The impugned order of ejectment has been passed on the ground of non-payment of rent for the months of February, March and April, 1984. The plea of the appellant that he had offered rent to the respondent but he had declined to accept it rests on his evidence and that of Jamil Akhtar, who is a tenant of the respondent in his shop. If the plea put forth by the appellant were true, the rent would have been remitted by money order much earlier as than the month of May, 1984 after filing of the ejectment case. The money order remittance is said to have been made on 23-5-1984 and by that time there had been clear default in payment of rent for the month of February, 1984.
3. Although the rent for the months of March and April had not attained legal default yet the fact remains that non-payment of rent for those two months also was in sequence of default in payment of rent for the month of February, 1984. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that there is no evidence that there was wilful default in payment of rent and, therefore, the order of ejectment was not called for. He has placed reliance on the cases, reported in PLD 1979 Lah. 127; PLD 1984 Kar. 532 and PLD 1965 Lah.
23. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there was wilful default in payment of rent for the months of February, March and April, 1984 and the appellant was liable to be ejected and he has placed reliance on the case reported in PLD 1987 Lah.
4. 47.
5. Since there was default in payment of rent for the month of February, 1984, the appellant made himself liable for ejectment from the rented premises. Thus there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed in limine.
6. ' The learned counsel for the appellant requests that the appellant may be granted time for vacating the shop. The learned counsel for the respondent concedes to the grant of four months time. Six months time is granted for vacating the shop and handing over its possession to the respondent subject to the payment of monthly rent.