SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioners, tenants under orders of ejectment, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 14-1-1989 whereby their first appeal filed by them under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act was dismissed.
2. The respondents claimed to have purchased the portion of a property which contained the tenement occupied by the petitioners. The purchase of the respondents was upheld by a decree of the Civil Court. This happened in 1981. In 1984, the respondents served a notice demanding rent at the rate of Rs.500 per month from the date of their purchase and also alleged damage to the property and their personal need. The suit was contested on numerous grounds. The Cantonments Rent Controller ordered the eviction on the ground of default, personal need and damage to the property. The High Court has declined to interfere with that order.
3. Sardar Akhtar Ali Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended before us that the rent prior to the notice had been paid to the previous owner and after the notice, rent was tendered to the respondents but was not accepted by them. There was in other words no default at all.
4. After hearing the learned counsel it appears the Court had already ordered the production of the record of the Rent Controller for ascertaining the facts. The records have been received and examined. No document exists on the record to sustain the claim that rent was tendered by money order and was refused. As a matter of fact, we find that Syed Muhammad Saaqlain, who remained in the premises on behalf of the petitioners from 1964 to 1986 appeared as a witness and made no mention of having tendered or having sent the rent. In the circumstances, there was no occasion to interfere with that finding.
5. It is also contended that though the learned counsel had inadvertently closed the evidence, an opportunity was sought for producing a witness who could prove that the rent had been tendered but the permission was not granted. The petitioners' counsel had himself closed the evidence and after having done so, there was no occasion for reopening the case as such.
6. We find no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.