' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 15-5-1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, against the order dated 15-1-1986 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gujranwala, whereby the order of ejectment was passed against the petitioner in respect of a shop situate in Gakhar Mandi, Gujranwala.
2. The background of the case is that respondents Nos.1 to 10 filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed shop under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) on the grounds of default and personal need.
The petitioner took the plea in para. 3 of the written statement that a sum of Rs,12,000 had already been received by the respondents as advance adjustable against the rent of Rs,200 at the rate of Rs,100 per month from 1-1-1980 and one hundred rupees towards the monthly rent would be paid in cash. This period admittedly stood expired on 3112-1989. The allegations of default as well as personal need were also denied. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 21-9-1985 directed the petitioner to deposit tentative rent in the sum of Rs,2,000 for the period December, 1983 to August 1985 by 20th October 1985 and also to deposit the future rent at the rate of Rs,100 per month before the 15th of each succeeding month. The order in question was passed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner failed to deposit the monthly rent for September 1985.
Consequently, his defence was struck off under section 13(6) of the Ordinance on 15-1-1986 and he was directed to vacate the premises in dispute. The petitioner preferred appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 15-5-1986.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs,12,000 towards part payment of future rent and at the time of striking down his defence a sum of Rs,4,500 was lying with the respondent and, therefore, no question of default of Rs,100 for the month of September, 1985 arose.
4. The contention is devoid of any force. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Zain-ul-Abidin that in terms of the agreement, the advance amount was to be adjusted as provided therein, but no provision was made and could be applied adjustment of default against the petitioner for failure to comply with the order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. Clearly, the petitioner-tenant cannot be absolved from the liability of making deposit under the aforesaid provision and the default remained intact notwithstanding the fact that some of the advance money was allegedly lying with the contesting respondents on the basis of the said agreement. This view finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Zarina Khawaja v. Agha Mahboob Shah (PLD 1988 SC 190), which I respectfully follow.
' In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. At this stage, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Syed Zain-ul-Abidin, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has agreed to allow the petitioner two months' time to vacate the premises in dispute. Order accordingly.