' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 18-12-1988, passed by the District Judge, Gujranwala whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5-7-1988 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Gujranwala whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off for wilfully violating the order passed under Section 13 (6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance).
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that by order dated 30-7-1987, the petitioners were directed by the learned Rent Controller to deposit the future rent in respect of the disputed shop, situated in Ganj Mandi, G.T. Road, Gujranwala at the rate of Rs,525 per month before the 15th of each month. The petitioners have been depositing the rent in pursuance of the impugned order.
The learned Rent Controller, however, took a view after perusing the challan forms that the petitioner herein, did not mention the name of the landlord in the relevant column of the challan form and instead inserted his own name in columns Nos.1 and 2 and thus there was no bona fide omission or clerical error in not complying with' the mandatory provisions of subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance. On appeal, the learned District Judge after re-appreciating the challan forms held that the petitioner has mentioned his name in the column No,2 of all the challan forms instead of the name of the respondent landlord. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner had deliberately and contumaciously entered his name in columns Nos.1 and 2 in the challan forms relating to rent for the period August, 1987 to March, 1988. The factual position as stated in the impugned orders is-not disputed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Major (R) A.S.K. Samad v. Lt. Col. (R) A. Hussain and others 1987 SCMR 1013 contended that the Courts below have acted illegally in holding the petitioner guilty of disobedience of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller under Section 13 (6) of the Ordinance, inasmuch as the petitioner has been depositing the rent in compliance with the order of the learned Rent Controller and the petitioner could not be penalized for a technical or clerical error inasmuch as in column No,3 of the challan the title of case was clearly stated. The submission was that if columns Nos.1, 2 and 3 were read together, there was no ambiguity that the rent was tendered by Malik Manzoor Ahmad petitioner herein for the benefit of Sardar Ahmad respondent.
3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the challan forms with their able assistance. In Major (R) A.S.K. Samad (supra), the petitioner therein had been depositing the rent with the learned Rent Controller regularly, and the only difference was that instead of depositing the amount in the ejectment application No,1823 of 1977 in which order was passed under Section 13 (6) of the Ordinance, the appellant therein deposited rent in Misc. Rent Case No,953 of 1976. It is also admitted that in the precedent case the amount of rent was deposited by the appellants voluntarily as the landlord in that case refused to accept the rent. It is also an admitted fact that the amount of rent deposited by the appellants therein in Misc. Rent Case 953 of 1976 was being withdrawn by the landlord therein from time to time. In this background it was held in the precedent case that for the default committed by the tenant in depositing rent in Misc rent case instead of main case, he could not be held guilty of disobedience of the order of the Rent Controller under Section 13 (6) of the Ordinance or as to entail penalty of eviction from the 'disputed premises.
In the instant case, no explanation whatsoever has been given as to why the name of the landlord for whose benefits the amount was deposited was not inserted in the relevant column of the challan. In case of Syed Nawab Shah v. Mst. Majeedan Khatoon PLD 1979 Lah. 618 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was held in second appeal by this Court that making the necessary deposit by the tenant in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord instead of the landlord, cannot be. Treated as lapse on his part. But a contrary view was taken by the Supreme Court, in case of Khawaja Ghulam Mustafa v. Mian Waqar Ahmad PLD 1980 SC 9, the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:- "Applying the same principle here too, the deposit of rent by the tenant in the names of large body of persons, namely, the heirs of Haji Abdur Rashid instead of the respondent who had been specifically accepted as his landlord as explained earlier, was deliberate and contumacious and the Courts below were justified in not endorsing the validity of such a deposit. The Ordinance, whereas it gives certain protections and privileges to tenants, also impose certain obvious obligations on them which it may be stated is their bounden duty to strictly follow.
5. In the instant case, the petitioner has not stated the name of the landlord and the mere fact that he gave the title of the parties in the column No,3 of the challan would not cure the defect.
Reference may be made to Haji Allah Ditta v. Mst. Shahzadi Bilyis and another (1980 SCMR 41), wherein it was held that omission to mention the name of persons on whose behalf the rent was being offered appears to be deliberate and the deposit of the amount by the tenant in treasury cannot be regarded as lawful tender of the rent.
6. A concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below after careful appreciation of relevant challan forms that the petitioner has not wilfully followed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller under Section 13 (6) of the Ordinance. This finding is not open to interference in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
7. In view of the above, 1 find no force in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed with no order, as to costs. The petitioner is, however, allowed one month's time to vacate the disputed premises.