This SA.O. Is directed against the judgment, dated 1-12-1991, by which a learned Additional District Judge at Faisalabad dismissed the appeal of Shaukat A.I appellant against the order, dated 7-6- 1990, by which a learned Rent Controller at Faisalabad, accepting the ejectment application of Muhammad Ayoob respondent directed his (appellant's) ejectment from the disputed shop situated in Faisalabad Town.
2. It appears that the respondent had filed an eviction petition against the appellant, mainly on the ground of his default in the payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 1,700 per mensem from January 1989 till February, 1990.
3. The appellant contested the application and in his written statement denied the allegations of his opponent. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller, vide his order dated 19-2-1990, passed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, directed the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent from January, 1989 till February, 1990, total amounting to Rs.
23,800, before 4-3-1990. On this date of hearing, the appellant produced the receipts showing the payment' of rent for the period from June 1989 up to March, 1990. However, on his request the learned Rent Controller allowed him to produce the receipt for the remaining period on 12-3-1990.
On this date he produced the receipt indicating the deposit of rent on 11-3-1990 for the period from January, 1989 to May, 1989.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed a number of issues, but on 15-4-1990 the respondent made an application to the effect that his opponent had defaulted to deposit the arrears of rent till 4-3-1990 and his defence was liable to be struck off.
5. The application was opposed by the appellant but the learned Rent Controller, vide his order, dated 7-6-1990, struck off the defence of the appellant and directed him to hand over possession of the disputed property to his opponent immediately, on the ground that he had failed to deposit the arrears of rent for the period from January, 1989 to May, 1989 before 4-3-1990 and thereby did not comply with the order, dated 19-2-1990, for the deposit of arrears of rent for the period from January, 1989 to February, 1990. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant went up in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad but there too he remained unsuccessful and brought this second appeal.
6. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that he had actually paid the rent for the period from January, 1989 to May, 1989 to his landlord at the rate of agreed monthly rent but the receipts issued to him had been misplaced and on 12-3-1990, date of hearing before the learned Rent Controller, the appellant had even made an offer to the respondent that in case he took an oath that he had not received the rent, the ejectment petition could be accepted, but he refused to take oath.
According to the learned counsel, his client even now stood by that offer and the respondent could be asked to take an oath to that effect. He contended that the learned Rent Controller had in 'fact extended the time for the deposit of the rent of the disputed period on an application made by the appellant who deposited the rent of that period on 11-3-1990 and as such there was no non- compliance of the order of the learned Rent Controller, dated 19-2-1990, but both the Courts below did not appreciate this aspect of the matter.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has tried to support the impugned orders.
8. It is an admitted position that the appellant does not possess any receipt indicating the payment of monthly rent to the respondent for the period from January, 1989 to May, 1989. He asserted that he had paid the rent for this period but the receipts issued by the landlord had been misplaced by him. The contention of the learned opposing counsel, on the contrary, was that since the appellant had not paid rent for the aforesaid period, so he was not in possession of the receipts indicating payment of rent.
9. It is also apparent from the record that on an application made by the appellant, the learned Rent Controller allowed him 4o deposit arrears of rent for the period from January, 1989 to May, 1989 and he deposited the arrears of rent on 11-3-1990, but this was a routine order passed by the learned Rent Controller and not conscience one, modifying his earlier order, dated 19-2-1990, so he did not grant extension to the appellant for the deposit of a portion of arrears of rent after 4-3-1990 nor he could do so.
10. It seems that the appellant on 4-3-1990 first gave an impression to the learned Rent Controller that he had deposited all the arrears of rent in accordance with his order, dated 19-2-1990, but later when the respondent pointed out his non-compliance in respect of the arrears of rent for the period from January, 1989 to May, 1989, he (appellant) came out with the explanation that he had lost the receipt indicating payment of rent to the landlord for this period and at the same time made an application to the learned Rent Controller and obtained a routine order for the deposit of rent of this period after the specified date. All this he did in a clever and clandestine manner in order to hoodwink the learned Rent Controller, for which he had to suffer. His defence was, therefore, rightly struck off and was summarily directed to hand over the possession of the disputed shop to the respondent. No fault, therefore, can be found with the orders of the Courts below and there being no substance in the appeal, the same is dismissed. However, the appellant is allowed four months time from the date of this order to vacate the disputed shop and hand over its vacant possession to his opponent.