1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2 October 1988 whereby writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is a tenant of Room No,13 forming part of Habib Bank Building at Lake Road, Lahore belonging to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs,40. The respondent as landlord filed an eviction application before the Rent Controller Lahore seeking eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal need.
3. The application was resisted by the petitioner. The evidence was led by the respondent to the effect that the petitioner had paid rent till 1979 but thereafter he failed to pay the rent until the filing of the application of eviction in 1981. After hearing both the sides and recording evidence the finding of the Rent Controller was that since the petitioner had failed to deposit the rent from January, 1980 onwards he was proved to be a defaulter and on that basis his eviction was ordered with a direction that he should hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within two months. The appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid ejectment order was dismissed. Thereafter his writ petition was dismissed as stated above by the Lahore High Court.
4. Hence the present petition.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the power of attorney to start proceedings against the petitioner was not legally issued as no attorney was authorised to file eviction application in the absence of a resolution passed by the Directors of the respondent-bank and that in the present case the power of attorney produced before the Rent Controller was neither formally proved nor the same could he lawfully received in evidence. As observed by the High Court this argument had been advanced before it and that the finding is that the said power of attorney had been received in evidence by the Rent Controller without any objection on the part of the petitioner. Therefore he could not be permitted to contend that it was not formally proved.
6. ' We have gone through the impugned judgment. The concurrent finding of fact is that the petitioner was proved to be a defaulter in payment of rent. In that view of the matter no interference is called for. This petition is therefore, dismissed.