WAHIDUDDIN AHMED, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of one room on the first floor of properties Nos. 620 and 623, situated in Sarrafa Bazar, Rawalpindi. It was transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents an the 12th May, 19601. The respondents served a notice on the petitioner under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, for payment of rent at the rate of Rs.
50. The notice was served on the 9th March, 1967. The respondents filed a pre mature application for the ejectment of the petitioner on the 30th March, 1967, which was withdrawn on the 30th June, 1967. A second application for ejectment was filed on the 30th June, 1967, on the ground that the petitioner has defaulted in the, payment of rent and committed acts which impaired the value and utility of the property in dispute. The learned Rent Controller, has held that there was .No default on the part of the petitioner. He further held that even if it was assumed that the rent was not tendered by the petitioner this was fit case fort exercising the discretion in his favour. It was also held that Rs. 15 p.m., is the rent of the property in occupation of the petitioner. Appeal against this order was dismissed by the learned District Judge by order dated rape 30th July 1969. The respondents challenged this order is S. A. O. No. 239 of 196'9 and a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, by judgment dated the 19th October, 1973, as accepted the appeal and as a result; of this, the petitioner is to die ejected from the property in dispute: The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
Sardar Ataullah, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the arrears of rent were deposited on the 8th duly 1967 and that the balance was made up on the 27th February 1968. He, however, argued that the rent was deposited on the 8th July 1967, immediately after the proceeding terminated before the Rent Controller. According to him, the High Court should not have interfered with the 4dscrction exercised by the Rent Controller.
After hearing the learned counsel fort the petitioner we are satisfied that the petitioner has committed default it the payment of rent and the Rent Controller and the District Judge exercised the discretion vested in them under section 30 of the Displaced Persons, (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, in asst arbitrary manner. In the circumstances of the present case, the High Court was perfectly justified in interfering with the order of the Rent Controller. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.