SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- The petitioner is the owner of a house. He had let out a portion of it to respondent No.2. He filed an application before the Rent Controller for the ejectment of respondent no.2 on the ground that the latter was a defaulter in the payment of rent. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller but on appeal by respondent No.2 the District Judge set aside the order of ejectment and dismissed the application. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to question the legality of the order of the District Judge but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. ,
2. In his application before the Rent Controller, the petitioner alleged that respondent No.2 had not paid the rent for the months of April, May, June, July and August 1981. The application for eviction was filed in September, 1981. The tenancy was an oral one. No evidence was led by the petitioner to show that under the terms of the tenancy the rent was payable in advance or within a specified period. As the application for eviction was filed within 60 days of the rent for the months of July and August becoming due, respondent No.2 could not be said to have made a default in respect of the said two months.
3. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 had sent a cheque to the petitioner in June 1981 for an amount which was sufficient to cover the rent for the months of April, May and June 1981. It was dishonoured by the bank for the reason, solely, that the respondent No. 2 had written the words "On A/C of rental charges * * * * * "on it. It was not the petitioner's case that sufficient funds were not available in the account of respondent No.2 to meet the amount of the cheque. The controversy between the parties before the Rent Controller and the learned District Judge revolved round the question whether the petitioner had informed respondent No.2 about the refusal of the bank to honour the cheque. The learned Rent Controller found that the petitioner had in fact sent information in this regard to the respondent No. 2. On appeal the District Judge reappraised the evidence and come to a contrary conclusion. The High Court in writ jurisdiction declined to interfere with the finding of the learned District Judge.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not persuaded that the finding of the learned District Judge which was essentially on a question of fact suffered from any infirmity. We would accordingly dismiss this petition.