' Precisely stated, respondent No,3 Ch. Riaz Ahmad filed an ejectment application against the present petitioner for his ejectment from House No,56/B, Street No,8, behind A.M. Studio Bhatianwala, Tehsil and District Lahore which was leased out to the petitioner as tenant at the monthly rent of Rs,800 vide rent deed dated 11-9-1984. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the aforementioned tenancy. The grounds of ejectment were default from October 1988 upto the date of ejectment application which was filed on 1-9-1991 and also that the premises were required in good faith for the personal use and occupation of the respondent. Written statement was filed by the petitioner-tenant on 2-12-1991.
2. Learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 23-12-1991 directed the petitioner to file the payment receipts in the Court before 8-3-1992 and in default the petitioner-tenant would deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs,27,200 @ Rs,800 per month and that too before 8-3-1992. It was further directed that the petitioner would deposit monthly rent @ Rs,800 before 5th of every month. Issues were also framed on that date and case was adjourned to 8-3-1992 on which the evidence of respondent No,3 landlord was to be recorded. The case was taken up on 8-3-1992 and learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant conceded that the rent could not be deposited whereupon on the same day the ejectment application was accepted and the petitioner-tenant was directed to hand over the possession of the disputed property.
3. An appeal was filed against the order of Rent Controller dated 8-3-1992 which was rejected vide order dated 2-6-1992 of the Additional District Judge, Lahore affirming the order of the Rent Controller dated 8-3-1992. Learned Appellate Court was of the view that no evidence was available before the Rent Controller that the arrears of rent amounting to Rs,27,200 and the payment of future rent was made by the petitioner-tenant. Before me learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urges that as stated in para.2 of the written statement filed by the tenant, it is clear that landlord has been paid a sum of Rs,90,000 as advance money at the time of renting out the property but he submits that there is no receipt of this amount. Reliance is also placed on a photostat copy of alleged receipt dated 4-3-1992 to the effect that sum of Rs,27,200 has been paid to the landlord as ordered by the Rent Controller. This is Annexure 'H' to this writ petition. It is further contended that petitioner-tenant was not given a chance of hearing before the ejectment order was passed on 8-3-1992. Reliance is placed on 1981 SCMR 326 "Din Muhammad and others v. Umar Hayat and others".
4. I am of the opinion that there is no force in anyone of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner that he paid a sum of Rs,90,000 to the landlord as advance rent is palpably false. If that be the position then there was no necessity of another payment of Rs,27,200 and Rs,3,200 by way of alleged receipt dated 4-3-1992, a photo copy of which is attached with this petition.
5. There is clear admission on the part of learned counsel for the petitioner, as stated in the ejectment order dated 8-3-1992, that the rent could not be deposited as already ordered. If the petitioner had paid the rent vide alleged receipt dated 4-3-1992 the same could have been produced before Rent Controller either by the petitioner or by his counsel on 8-3-1992. This having not been done there is reasonable inference that receipt dated 4-3-1992 is a forged document.
6. Learned Rent Controller clearly directed the petitioner to pay rent vide his order dated 23-12-1991 and non-compliance of this order is not only wilful but contumacious and in these circumstances the petitioner does not deserve any leniency and the ejectment order was rightly passed.
7. Receipt dated 4-3-1992 was originally shown to me, a photo copy of which is placed on the file.
As this document has been placed on the record for the first time, I have expressed my opinion that the document is forged one. Am quite conscious that if the receipt had been placed before the Rent Controller he was entitled to comment upon it and in that case the question could have arisen whether or not the finding of fact could be substituted. But as the matter stands, prima facie, the receipt is not a genuine document. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the tenant had paid the money by way of receipt dated 4-3-1992.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that neither any advance payment of Rs,90,000 as alleged in written statement has been paid nor the money as alleged in the receipt dated 4-3- 1992. I agree with him, as noted above, that the receipt dated 4-3-1992 is a forged document and an afterthought to falsely and complicate the issues between the parties.
9. As to the question of opportunity of hearing it is manifestly clear from the ejectment order dated 8-3-1992 that the same was granted to the petitioner through his counsel. If the petitioner-tenant elected not to appear before the Rent Controller then no one has to be blamed. In fact learned counsel on his behalf appeared and made a statement that rent could not be deposited. I am of the opinion that this is one of those cases where the tenant has entered into false litigation to prolong it.
10. For the aforementioned reasons there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with costs.