1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioner is the occupant of house No. P. 156 situated in Model Town, Lyallpur. As he is a local and not eligible for the transfer of the house, the house was placed on the earmarking list and ultimately transferred to the respondents on 11-12-1959. A P. T. O. Was also issued in their favour on 19-3-1960.
2. After the issuance of the P. T. O., the respondents, on the 10th of June 1960, served a notice under section 3U of the Dis--placed Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, demanding payment of arrears of rent from the date of ear--marking, as also demanding future rent ; but the notice did not specify the rate of the rent.
3. The petitioner ignored the notice. Hence the respondents, on the 26th of August 1960, served another notice on the petitioner demanding rent at the rate of Rs. 50 per mensem. On receipt of this notice, the petitioner contacted the respondent No. 1 and informed him that the petitioner was liable to pay rent only from the date of the provisional transfer order, and not from the date of the earmarking, and also that the rate of rent was Rs. 20 a month, and not Rs. 50 per month. The respondents did not agree with this. Hence the petitioner on the 29th of August 1960, paid Rs. 200 in lump sum and on account. There after, On the 9th of November 1960, he made another lump sum payment of Rs. 75 and again on the 2nd of March 1961, another sum of Rs. 100 was paid. Then, after a few months, he remitted a further sum of Rs. 175 on the 11th of October 1961, through Money Order, which was refused by respondent No. 1 on 12-10-1961.
4. Since the dispute as to the quantum of rent payable was not settled, the respondents, on the 13th of October 1961, started proceedings for ejectment on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulter and that the respondents required the house for their own use and occupation.
5. The petitioner disputed that he was a defaulter. According to him, the rent was Rs. 20 per month and the respondents were entitled to rent only from the date of the provisional transfer order, namely, the 19th of March 1960.
6. Since there was a dispute as regards the rate of the rent, the Rent Controller at first tentatively fixed the rent at Rs. 20 per month and ordered the petitioner to deposit the arrears from 11-3-1961, and to pay future rents at the above-mentioned rate for every subsequent month before the fifth day of each month. This order was duly complied with by the petitioner. At the final hearing the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondents were only entitled to rent from the date of the P. T. O. And that the occupant, under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was entitled to hold the house on the same terms and conditions as to the payment of rent on which he held the house immediately before the transfer. Unfortunately, the learned Rent Controller did not call for any evidence or raise any issue as to the terms and conditions on which the petitioner held the premises under the Rehabilitation Authorities, but went on to accept the oral testimony of the petitioner that he paid rent at Rs. 20 per month as the same appeared to be supported by the assessment made by the Taxation Department. This fact could easily have been proved by the production of receipts, if any, obtained for the payment of rent to the Rehabilitation Department or from the Survey register of the Rehabilitation Department but this was not done, although the petitioner had at one stage offered rent at Rs. 25 per month- presumably on the basis that that was the rent that he was paying to the Rehabilitation Department.
7. Calculating on the basis of his own determination of the rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per month, the Rent Controller found that there was no default for which the petitioner could be deprived of his statutory right under section 30 of the Act of 1958. The ejectment was, accordingly, refused.
8. The respondents went up in appeal to the District Judge who held that, as the petitioner had agreed to pay rent at Rs. 25 per mensem, there was default, calculating rent at the rate of Rs 25 per mensem from the date of earmarking, namely, the 11th of December 1959. The appeal was, accordingly, allowed and the petitioner was directed to put the respondents in possession by the 31st of July 1964.
9. From this order the petitioner went up to the High Court in second appeal, and a learned Single Judge, agreeing with the views of the Rent Controller, accepted the appeal and reversed the decision of the District Judge. In a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondents, however, the Division Bench again reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge, upheld the order of the District Judge and directed the tenant to deliver possession within a period of three months.
10. According to the Division Bench, the petitioner was, on his own showing, a habitual defaulter, because, he never paid rent regularly at the end of every month but made lump sum payments from time to time after a lapse of several months. This was not due compliance with the obligations imposed on a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which requires that rent should be paid within sixty days from the period for which it is payable.
11. As regards the rate of rent, the Division Bench came to the view that the amount paid by the petitioner to the Settlement Department was, on his own admission, at the rate of Rs. 25 a month and not Rs. 20 a month. This fact, it appears, was also conceded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as it was borne out by the Survey register. A certified copy of the relevant extract from this register was placed on the record by the learned counsel for the respondents. The High Court did not, however, consider it necessary to accept this additional evidence, because, of the admission of the petitioner himself that he was paying rent at the rate of Rs. 25 per mensem to the Settlement Department.
12. The learned counsel appearing in support of the petition has addressed elaborate arguments to show that the High Court has misread the evidence and its findings are based on misconceptions of fact. In any event, it is said that, since there was no wilful default on the part of the petitioner, the order for ejectment should not-have been made. The default, if any, arose because of the dispute in regard to the quantum of rent ; otherwise, the petitioner, who was quite a wealthy person, was in a position to pay all the rents that were found due from him.
13. None of the grounds urged by the learned counsel justify the grant of lease in a civil matter. In a civil matter, this Court only grants leave where an important question of law of general or public importance is involved. No such question is involved here. The law with regard to wilful default, so far as this Court is concerned, is now settled. Apart from this, we are of the opinion that the High Court was right in taking the view that the petitioner was, on his own showing, a habitual defaulter, in so far as he never paid the rent of a month at the time it became due or within the period allowed for paying the same under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of 1959, He cannot, therefore, claim the benefit of the statutory right to continue as a tenant under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
14. In any event, the statutory period of six years under section 30(1)(6) has now expired. Therefore, under subsection (4) of section 30, the relationship of landlord and tenant no longer exists between the petitioner and the respondents.
15. In the circumstances, we do not think that this is a fit case in which leave should be granted.
16. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed, but three months' time is given to the petitioner to vacate the premises on condition that he files a written undertaking in this Court that he will do so within three months from today.