' Ch. Muhammad Rasheed, and five others, petitioners herein, filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking eviction of respondent No,1 from property No,104-Lytton Road, Lahore, on the ground of default in payment of rent. On 15th November, 1984, the parties entered. Into a compromise, the terms whereof were reflected in the application filed by them before the Rent Controller, who after recording the statements of the parties passed an order disposing of the ejectment petition on the basis of the compromise.
2. According to this agreement, the respondent undertook to vacate the premises within a 'period of 3 years. It was further stipulated that respondents shall pay the rent at the rate of Rs,700 by or before the 14th day of each month, and in case of default in payment of rent of two months, the order of ejectment shall become executable at once.
3. Subsequently, an application for execution of the order of ejectment was filed by the petitioners on the ground that the respondent had failed to pay the montly rent for April and May, 1986, within the stipulated period and was as such liable to be ejected. This application was contested by the respondent on the plea that he had committed no default as the rent for the months of April and May, 1986 was remitted to the landlord through a money order, dated 4th June, 1986. This plea did not find favour with the Rent Controller, who on 24th June, 1986 held that the respondent was a defaulter having not paid or tendered the rent before the 14th day of each month and was, therefore, liable to be ejected.
4. Aggrieved by this order, respondent No,1 took an appeal which was heard by Additional District Judge, Lahore, who was of the view that the monthly rent could be paid by the tenant in terms of the compromise by or before 14th day of the subsequent month and, therefore, there was no default. The Additional District Judge whip accepting the appeal dismissed the application for execution filed by the petitioner who has now filed this Constitutional petition which has been heard ex pane against the respondents, as nobody had entered appearance on their behalf.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that while arriving at the finding that respondent No,1 had not committed any default in compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Additional District Judge has misread the agreement itself and has erred in holding that the monthly rent could be paid before 14th day of the next succeeding month.
6. This contention of the learned counsel is well-founded. There is no dispute that the parties had entered into an agreement the terms whereof are reflected in the application, dated 18th February, 1984 on the basis of which the application for ejectment filed by the petitioner was disposed of.
According to clause (4) of the agreement, respondent No,1 was under an obligation to pay rent at the rate of Rs,700 per month by or before the 14th day of the month and in case of his failure to pay rent for two months by the due date, he was liable to be ejected. It also stands admitted that the rent for the months of April and May, 1986 was remitted on 14th June, 1986 by respondent No,1 to the petitioners. The only controversial point between the parties is as to whether the rent for a particular month was to be paid by or before the 14th day of that month or the succeeding month.
While arriving at the conclusion, that the rent could be paid by 14th day of next month, the Additional District Judge unfortunately instead of construing the terms of the agreement itself went by irrelevant considerations and held that the failure to pay rent in advance, could not be vested with the penalty of ejectment. Reliance in this respect was placed upon a judgment of this Court in Iltaf Hussain v. Talib Hussain PLD 1977 Lah. 110 which in the circumstances of the case had no relevance for in that case the provisions of section 13(2) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance were construed to mean that failure to pay rent in advance did not render the tenant to be a defaulter. In the present case, the provisions of section 13(2) were not relevant inasmuch as it was the agreement between the parties which formed part of the order of the Rent Controller, which was to be interpreted. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mirza Abdul Aziz Beg v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sheikh (1980 SCMR 834) has taken a view contrary to that expressed by this Court in Iltaf Hussain's case, which does not lay down correct law.
7. A perusal of the agreement arrived at between the parties leaves no doubt that the respondent was under an obligation to pay the monthly rent by or before the 14th day of that month and not subsequent month as has been held by the Additional District Judge. This conclusion finds full support from the stipulation contained in clause (5) of the agreement. There is nothing in the agreement which could lead to the interpretation that the rent could be paid by the 14th day of the succeeding month. The Additional District Judge was, therefore, wholly unjustified in reversing the findings recorded by the Rent Controller.
' As a result of what has been said above, this petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated 8th February, 1987 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result that the order of the Rent Controller, dated 24th June, 1986 stands restored. No orders as to costs.