1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a Judge of the High Court of Baluchistan dated 30-i1-1986 allowing an appeal filed by the first respondent herein against the orders of his eviction from the demised premises passed by the Rent Controller, Quetta on 22-7-1986 on the ground that he was proved to be a defaulter in payment of rent from April, 1978 to April, 1982 as asserted by petitioner-landlord.
2. The petitioner sought eviction of the first respondent on the ground that he had not only sublet the premises but was also a defaulter in payment of rent from April 1978 to April 1982.
3. After recording evidence produced by the parties, learned Rent Controller took the view that the first plea of the petitioner was not proved, but he upheld the second, namely, that the first respondent is guilty of default in payment of rent as stated by the petitioner. On this view of the case, he directed eviction of first respondent's from the demised premises by order dated 22-7- 1986.
4. On appeal, learned Judge of the High Court who dealt with the case on re-appraisal of the evidence on record noticed the fact that in his statement before the Rent Controller petitioner had admitted to have received rent till November, 1978, and there is ample proof on record that the tenant started depositing rent from 23-9-19713 onwards. According to the learned Judge in the High Court, "all these materials were not taken into consideration by the Rent Controller, thus the issue of default in payment of rent was wrongly decided in affirmative. In fact, I find no default in payment of rent for the period alleged in the eviction application.
5. Although learned Rent Controller had rejected petitioners' assertion that first respondent had sublet the premises to the second respondent, yet learned Judge in the High Court reconsidered this plea also. He finally upheld the view that prevailed with the learned Rent Controller on this point.
6. Mr. Tahir Muhammad Khan learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the Judgment of the High Court submitted that the learned Judge of the High Court has failed to appreciate that "since the first respondent dishonestly challenged the entitlement of landlord to receive rent and consequently discontinued payment of rent without any reasonable cause, he was a wilful defaulter, and, in the circumstances, the wilful non-payment of rent to landlord and its deposit in court would amount to contumacious denial, and would thus entail his eviction from the demised premises.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the fact of deposit of rent in court by the first respondent without any offer to landlord does not amount or constitute a legal tender of rent.
8. Learned counsel finally submitted that the learned Judge has not appreciated that petitioner has sufficiently proved that the first respondent had sublet the premises to the second respondent.
9. As regards the first and the Second pleas, it may be mentioned that learned Judge in the High Court noticed the fact from the evidence of the first respondent that he had categorically admitted that he was a tenant, and that petitioner was the landlord, and, therefore, there was no question of his denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In his statement before the Rent Controller, petitioner admitted having received rent till November, 1978 and there is also no denial of the fact that first respondent started depositing Rent from 23-9-1978 onwards upto the date the ejectment application was filed against him by the petitioner. It was the case of first respondent in the written statement filed before the Rent Controller, which he reiterated in his statement in Court, that' petitioner had refused to accept the rent whereupon he sent the same through money order which again was refused, and it was in these circumstances that he started depositing rent in court. Since the pleas raised by him were supported by the documentary evidence the learned Judge in the High Court has very rightly held that on these facts first respondent could not be held guilty as defaulter in payment of rent.
10. As regards the last submission, there is concurrent finding of fact, which is rooted in evidence, that the second respondent was merely an employee of the first respondent. In any case, since there is also a concurrent finding of fact that petitioner has failed to prove satisfactorily the allegations levelled against the first respondent that he had unauthorisedly sublet the premises, interference by this Court in this case is not called for. For these reasons the petition is dismissed.