' This Constitutional petition filed by Safeer Ahmad, petitioner herein, calls in question the validity of orders dated 11-10-1987 and 20-9-1988 passed by the learned Rent Controller, and the Additional District Judge, Faislabad respectively whereby petitioner was ejected from the disputed portion of building No,492, Jinnah Colony, Faisalabad.
2. The relevant facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that on 9-10-1983 respondents Nos. 1 to 4 filed ejectment petition against the petitioner from the disputed premises on the ground that he defaulted in payment of rent, for the disputed period as also that the property in question was required for their personal use and occupation. On 27-11-1983 the petitioner filed reply to the petition and controverted the assertions made in the ejectment petition. The learned Rent Controller framed following issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties:-
(1) Whether the respondent has defaulted in the payment of rent for the disputed period? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioner require the disputed premises for their personal occupation, in good faith? OPP.
(3) Relief.
' The parties led evidence in support of their pleas. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 11-10-1987 found that the petitioner committed default in payment of rent for three months viz. June to August, 1983 whereas he decided other issue about the personal need of the disputed premises, against the respondents. Resultantly he accepted application and directed petitioner's ejectment from the disputed property allowing him four months' period for vacation thereof.
3. The petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed by the learned. Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide order, dated 20-9-1988 on the ground of limitation as well as by maintaining the finding of the learned Rent Controller on the question of default committed by the petitioner in payment of three months' rent to the landlords. He allowed petitioner two months' period for vacation of the disputed premises from the date of order. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs,1,000 on 1-3- 1979 to the previous tenant of the disputed property vide document (Exh.P.W.1/R8) at the instance of the father of the contesting respondents which could have been adjusted towards the rent for the defaulting period but this aspect of the case was not adverted to by respondents Nos.5 and 6 in the impugned orders. It was further contended that the learned Rent Controller as well as the Lower Appellate Authority did not allow the petitioner to lead additional evidence to prove that the petitioner had validly tendered rent for the defaulting period through cheque as such there was no question of default in payment of rent or at the most it was only a technical default not warranting petitioners' ejectment from the disputed property. It was next submitted that the petitioner had moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal but the learned Additional District Judge wrongly held the appeal being barred by time. Learned counsel for petitioner cited Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdullah PLD 1980 SC 298 and Masjide-Humra v. Zamir Ahmad 1982 CLC 2193 in support of his submissions.
5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents/landlords on the other hand, stated that the plea raised by the petitioner for adjustment of the amount of Rs,1,000 towards the rent for the defaulting period allegedly paid to the previous tenant of the disputed premises at the instance of respondents' father was not available to the petitioner as he had neither taken up the same in the memorandum of Appeal filed before the Lower Appellate Authority nor advanced the same at the time of arguments, he is, therefore, precluded to raise that plea at this stage. It was next submitted that the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge holding the petitioner defaulter cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. It was lastly contended that the appeal was admittedly barred by time and the learned Additional District Judge rightly refused to condone the delay, this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction will not interfere in the matter.
He relied on Mrs. Hazarbai Merchant and others v. Muhammad Ismail 1984 SCM R 406 and Karim Bakhsh v. Haji Ghulam Dastgir and others 1991 SCM R 131 in support of this submissions.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is true that the petitioner did not claim adjustment of the amount of Rs,1,000 towards the rent for the defaulting period, as this plea is neither reflected in the order of the Rent Controller nor mentioned in the grounds of appeal and in the order of the Additional District Judge. This plea therefore cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage particularly when it was mentioned in the rent note (Exh.P/2) executed by the petitioner that there will be no valid discharge for payment of rent without a receipt. The perusal of the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos.5 and 6 shows that their concurrent findings are based on correct appraisal of evidence, I am therefore not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders holding the petitioner defaulter in payment of rent for the disputed period.
7. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.