' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, assailed the judgment of the Additional District Judge. Faisalabad, dated 26th July, 1983, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by respondent No,1 and set aside the order of the Rent Controller, dated 5th July, 1983. On 4th January; 1982, an application under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was filed by petitioner against the respondent No,1 seeking his eviction from the two shops situated in Faisalabad in his possession as tenant under the petitioner on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of rent since April, 1981. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that respondent No,1 had failed to pay or tender the rent due in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreed between the parties and was as such a defaulter and liable to the ejectment. This finding was, however, reversed on appeal by the Additional District Judge who was of the view that since the rent note dated 5th April, 1980 had not been renewed, respondent No,1 was not liable to pay the rent in advance as stipulated therein but should have paid the rent within 60 days for the period for which it was due. On these premises, it was held that no default had been committed by the respondent.
2. I have heard Mr. M. Anwar Sipra, Advocate, for the petitioner. No one has entered appearance for the respondent. The view taken by the Additional District Judge that on the expiry of the period of tenancy mentioned in the rent note executed between the parties, the respondent/tenant was not bound to pay or tender the rent in advance in accordance with the stipulated period contained property in dispute but if at all the issuance of such an order is found necessary, then it is subject to some restrictions to gauge the bona fides of the plaintiff by ordering him to deposit the balance of the agreed price in Court. In this connection, he relied on Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Hanif and another (PLD 1990 Lahore 82). In the cited case temporary injunction was granted to a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell restraining the defendant from alienating the disputed property during the pendency of his suit subject to the condition that he deposited balance of the agreed sale consideration in Court. In dealing with the proposition, it was observed, "there is no gain saying that suit for specific performance shall take its own time to reach its final goal. Meanwhile, prices of real estate are not likely to remain static. They constantly show upward trend. Sharp fall in the money value during recent past and corresponding rise in prices of real estate is a relevant factor for the Court to consider when issuing an injunction order of the type under consideration. In this view, it shall not be just to bind the defendants from dealing with their own property without any solid security from their adversary to show his real bona fides in the proposed transaction of sale. In Mrs. Parveen Begum's case (PLD 1956 (W.P.) Karachi 521), grant of temporary injunction was subjected to prior deposit of Rs,1,00,000 whereas, agreed sale price was Rs,1,38,00 I out of which Rs,15,000 were already paid. In case of Feroze-ud-Din and another (1987 MLD 2035 (1), a. Division Bench of the Karachi High Court observed, "in a suit for specific performance, generally, the injunction is granted subject to the condition that the plaintiff shall deposit the balance of the agreed sale consideration". In case of Shama Enterprises (Private) Limited, (1989 MLD 21), it was again observed by the Division Bench that "in a suit for specific performance, when appellant seeks an injunction in respect of suit property, the Court normally orders the deposit of the balance of the sale consideration in the Court in order to see whether factually the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the sale agreement in respect of which the specific performance is sought". To me, it appears to be just and fair rule of law with which I respectfully agree and hold that ordinarily, in a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement, when the plaintiff asks for a prohibitory order for restraining the defendant from alienating the property agreed upon to be sold, grant of injunction must be subjected to terms as to deposit of the sale price in Court. Above course shall not only show something about bona fides of the plaintiff seeking specific enforcement of the agreement of sale, but shall also relieve the defendant from an unnecessary loss which he is likely to suffer".
8. I find myself in complete agreement with the above conclusions and, therefore, hold that in view of the law laid down in Fateh Muhammad's case, the learned trial Court should have subjected the prohibitory order to the condition that the respondent deposited the balance of the agreed sale consideration in Court. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to modification. Consequently, 1 accept this appeal and modify the impugned order to the extent that the prohibitory order would be subject to the condition that the respondent deposits in the trial Court, within three months, the balance of the agreed sale consideration (as claimed by him) i,e. Rs, 12,00,000 failing which, the prohibitory order shall stand vacated. The appellants are awarded the costs of this appeal also.