1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan in second appeal arising out of proceedings for the ejectment of the petitioner under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of default in respect of service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita--tion) Act, 1958, on the 9th of September 1965.
2. The landlord claimed that the rent was payable at the rate of Rs. 15 p.m. And that the petitioner had defaulted in the payment of rent from the 1st of May 1963.
3. The house was transferred to the landlord and the P. T. O. Had been issued in his favour on the 21st of November 1960. At that time the rent was Rs. 9.50 per month, but, sometime in January 19b5, the Additional Commissioner, Karachi, it is said, had in a revision application re-assessed the rent and fixed it at Rs. 15 per month. At this rate the total amount of the arrears claimed was Rs. 562.
4. The defence of the petitioner was that he had tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 9.50 per month on the 30th of July 1964, in respect of the rents from May 1963, to July 1964, and, then again he had tendered rent by money order on the 1st of May 1965, in respect of the rents for the months of February, March and April 1965. In addition, he was entitled to adjust repair charges incurred by him and if these adjustments were given and the tenders taken into account, there would be no default.
5. Unfor--tunately, even on this defence, there was nothing to show that the rents for the months of August to December 1964 and January 1965 had been paid or tendered by the petitioner at all, and, furthermore, that this tender of rents of several months at a time in a lump sum was not proper tender under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. On his own showing, therefore, he was a defaulter.
6. In addition to this, it appears that after notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili--tation) Act, 1958, had been served upon him, he had sent a reply through a lawyer on the 10th of August 1965. In this, he admitted that the rate of rent from January 1965, had been raised to Rs. 15 per month and that according to his counsel's own admission, there was owing from him a sum of Rs. 310. If the amounts tendered by him and the amount admitted by the landlord to be due on account of the repairs, viz., Re. 70 is allowed, he would still be in arrears, for the total amount tendered by him would come to Re. 142.50 plus Rs. 45 plus Rs. 70, equal to Re.
7. 297.50.
8. The Rent Controller, although he did not go into these details, however, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was in default because after April 1965 he had failed to remit any rent to the landlord on his own showing. On appeal, however, the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi, took the view that since the landlord had demanded excess rent the tenant was absolved from the duty to tender even the lawful rent and allowed the appeal On second appeal, the High Court took the view that the learned Additional District Judge had erred in interfering with the order challenged before him, as even on the petitioner's own admissions certain rentals were due against him on the 10th of August 1965, which he was willing to remit within a week and he, not having made any attempt to clear up his dues up to the 2nd of March 1966, when the ejectment application was filed, was clearly liable to be ejected under section 13 of the above--mentioned Ordinance.
9. The learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has attempted to challenge the judgment of the High Court on the ground that the learned Judge has wrongly interfered with the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below in second appeal. It is urged that both the trial Court and the first appellate Court found that the rate of rent was Rs. 9.50 per month and not Rs. 15 per month, and, furthermore, that according to the finding of the Rent Controller, if rent was due only for May 1965, then there was no default if the repair charges were also adjusted.
10. As we have earlier pointed out, the Rent Controller too did not take into account the fact that the petitioner had never paid nor tendered the rents for the months of August 1964 to January 1955.
11. Again, even on his own admission, the petitioner had only tendered rents for several months at a time on two occasions Both these facts clearly establish that the petitioner was in default by not complying with the statutory provisions of the Ordinance.
12. The learned counsel, however, contended that default must occur after the service of the notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and not before that. Even if this be so, then there was default even after September 1965, for no rent was tendered at all after April 1965, and if in addition to this the admission of the rate of rent con--tained in the letter of the petitioner's learned counsel sent on the, 10th of August 1965, as to the rate of rent from January 1965, is taken into account then the petitioner was clearly in default.
13. In any view of the matter, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was wrong in taking the view that if excess rent is demanded the tenant is absolved even from tendering the proper amount of rent. In the circumstances, when we are fully satisfied that the petitioner was, in any event, a defaulter, we can find no justification for granting leave in the present case. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed, but we grant the petitioner three months' time to vacate the premises. All arrears of rent due from him will be adjusted against the security already deposited try him. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.