1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner is a tenant, and be has been aggrieved by an order of ejectment passed against him on the ground of default in payment of rent.
2. ' The Rent Controller had found that the default was not deliberate, and accordingly exercised his discretion in favour of the tenant and disallowed ejectment.
3. ' The petitioner's contention has been that a practice grow up, and he paid rents in a lump sum every six months, or one year. He, however, failed to prove this practice, and this is evident from the instances he gave at pages 25-26 of the paper book.
4. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the implied contract on the basis of the aforesaid practice was not pleased by the petitioner in his written statement, and that in any event such a contract was contrary to the provisions of section 13(2) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), and, therefore, the former could not prevail over the latter. The petitioner has failed to controvert this legal position.
5. ' The petitioner claims benefit under section 13 of the said Ordinance, and he can, therefore, do so only if his case does not fall within the mischief of section 13(2) of the Ordinance.
6. ' There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.