1. ' This first appeal by the tenant calls in question order dated 12-7-1987 of Rent Controller, Rawalpindi Cantt. Facts are:- Fazal Karim, appellant, is tenant of shop No,1, Daud Market, Tench Bhata, Rawalpindi, of which respondents, are the landlords. Tenant pays Rs,700 P.M. As rent of the shop. On 13-5-1986, respondents applied to Rent Controller for ejectment of the appellant from the shop in question, on twin grounds of non-payment of rent and personal bona fide need. It was asserted that rent since September, 1985, had not been paid to them. Appellant resisted the ejectment application and traversed the grounds. It was pleaded that no relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between him and Muhammad Daud; that the tenancy was perpetual and petition for, ejectment was not maintainable; that the petition was barfed by res judicata; that in the presence of a title dispute between respondents, ejectment petition- could not proceed; that the ejectment application was false, frivolous and vexatious. It was also urged that Mst.Samander Jan,, respondent No,2, had earlier also filed an ejectment petition in which she had alleged that she required the shop for the use of Muhammad Yaqoob but then realizing the weakness of her stand withdrew the application on 23-4-1986 and refiled it after 20 days, on the basis of totally new grounds. In para.2 of the written statement, it was urged that the appellant had paid Rs,31,000 as 'pagri' to the previous tenant with the consent of Mst.Samander Jan and unless this amount was paid to him, he could not be evicted from the shop. On 24-6-1986, Rent Controller, passed an order under section 17(8) of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 and directed the appellant to deposit arrears at the rate of Rs,700 P.M. From September-, 1985 to May, 1986 (Rs,6,300) till 22-7-1986. It Was observed in the order that the appellant could adjust the amount he had already deposited. In Court or the amount admitted to have been received by the respondent No,2. Rent for the month of June, 1986 was directed to be deposited before 5th July, 1986. Future monthly rent at the agreed rate was ordered to be deposited before 5th of each succeeding month till the final adjudication of the ejectment application. After issuance of the aforesaid direction, Rent Controller, framed issues arising for decision and postponed the case to 23-7-1986 for evidence. It is Common ground that before evidence could be recorded, respondents complained of a default by appellant of the rent direction dated -24-6-1986, and applied for striking off his defence and being put in possession of the shop in question. This application was made on 25-3-1987. In reply, appellant denied the default attributed to him and urged that at the time of his induction in the shop, he had paid Rs,5,600 as advance rent to respondent No, 2 and in accordance with the agreement arrived at between them, he paid Rs,350 P.M. In cash to respondent No,2, whereas, the remaining amount of Rs,350 was adjusted from the advance rent of Rs,5,600. In terms of the aforesaid arrangement, rent till October, 1985 was paid to the respondent No,2 against receipts. It was further urged that from November, 1985 to March, 1986, rent at the rate of Rs,350 was deposited in the office of Rent Controller, and after the adjustment was complete, rent at the rate of Rs,700 P.M. Without any adjustment was being deposited. To establish this plea, appellant also relied on some rent receipts and the agreement dated 10-11-1984. On examination of the contentions of the parties, rent receipts, and the agreement dated 10-11-1984, Rent Controller found that default 'was committed.
2. Consequently, he struck off the appellant's defence and directed him to vacate and handover possession within thirty days of his order dated 12-7-1987. Appellant challenges this decision and says that, on proper examination of the record, no default was established. Also says that rent direction suffered from vagueness and its non-compliance could not be visited with extreme penalty of the appellant's ejectment.
3. ' For the respondents, it was argued that there was no ambiguity in the rent direction. It was also argued that the receipts were ungenuine and the agreement dated 10-11-1984 to which the respondents were not party, cannot be held binding on them. Learned counsel also submitted that, in the written statement, no such plea was taken and in the absence of the specific pleading, it is not open to the appellant to base his defence on adjustment from the alleged advance rent. In this behalf, learned counsel pointed out that in the written statement appellant has simply referred to the payment of a certain sum of money as 'pagri' to the previous tenant and claimed to be recouped before his ejectment. It is denied that the appellant had paid Rs,5,600 as advance rent to respondent No,2 or that he was entitled to any adjustment. Admittedly, rent for the months of September and October, 1985 was not deposited. Rent from the month of November, 1985 to March, 1986 was deposited, at the rate of Rs,350 P.M. Thereafter, rent at the rate of Rs,700 P.M. Was deposited in the office of Rent Controller. From the direction of the Rent Controller, it appears that the appellant was obliged to deposit Rs,6,300 till 22-7-1986. Direction covered the rent from September, 1985 to May, 1986. Appellant does not claim to have deposited any amount in addition to the aforesaid amount of rent. On proper calculation, it appears that he had deposited Rs,3,150 whereas, he was obliged to deposit Rs,6,300 as arrears of rent by a particular date. Though, neither the payment of advance rent (Rs,5,600) to respondents was established nor was it proved that the appellant was entitled to claim adjustment therefrom, yet even if it were taken to 'be true that advance rent was paid as alleged and the appellant was entitled to claim adjustment therefrom, adjustment was complete in February, 1986, and thereafter, appellant had no justification to withhold Rs,350 as rent from the month of March, 1986. It is agreed that even if full adjustment was allowed, appellant was still guilty of default, in that, instead of depositing Rs,700 for the month of March, 1986, he had deposited Rs,350 only. As said above, respondents do not admit agreement dated 10-11-1984 nor the receipts produced by the appellant. They characterized these receipts as mere fabrications. In either case, on his own showing, appellant was guilty of non-compliance of the rent direction. Argument that the direction was either vague or ambiguous is wholly without substance and cannot be accepted, Appellant did not give any plausible explanation for not paying the rent-arrears as directed by Rent Controller. Object underlying section 17(9) of Rent Act 1963 clearly appears to secure payment of rent to the landlord and also to protect the tenant who is mindful of his obligation in the matter of payment of rent. To claim adjudication on merits, appellant was clearly obliged to respect and obey the direction made by Rent Controller for deposit of rent-arrears as also future monthly rent. In case of default, all that the Rent Controller has to do is to strike off defence and put the landlord in possession of the property without taking any other further proceedings in the case. This is what exactly has happened in this case. In the result of his own default, appellant has earned ejectment order from the shop. Fe" this he is to blame himself only. On consideration, I am of the opinion that the order of striking off the defence of the appellant and putting respondents in possession of the rented shop is unexceptionable and does not call for any further interference. In result, this appeal fails. It is dismissed but without costs.
4. ' Appellant is given four months to vacate, and, handover possession of the shop to respondents subject to payment/deposit of rent-arrears, if any, within thirty days and also future monthly rent at the agreed rate by 10th of each month in advance. In case of default, respondents 'shall be entitled to execute the order of ejectment and obtain possession from the appellant.