1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Syed Fakhar Mahmood Gillani, petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13-10-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, whereby his Appeal No, FAO-32/93 against the order of Rent Controller dated 9-5-1993 dismissing his petition for eviction of Abdul Ghafoor respondent from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period from May, 1990 to October, 1991 at the rate of Rs,350 per month, under section 17(2)(i) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, was dismissed.
2. ' We have heard Mr. Shahzad Akbar, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case with his valuable assistance.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the burden of proof of payment of rent regarding the disputed period was upon the tenant/respondent who miserably failed to establish that the rent for the said period was duly tendered to the petitioner/landlord and that he had refused to receive the same, and that the mere production of Money Order coupon could not per se establish the tendering of rent without production of the Postman concerned to depose that the Money Order amount was properly tendered to the petitioner/landlord and that he refused to receive the same. In support of his arguments he cited the case of Shamsher v. Syed Ahsan Ali (1983 CLC 308). He also produced a book titled "Guide to Postal Authorities" and submitted that the money order for the amounts less than Rs,2,000 can be delivered by the postman at the spot but for the money order relating to amounts exceeding Rs,2,000 a notice is to be served upon the payee to come to the post office and receive the amount at the post office window, and that, since some of the money orders were for the amounts exceeding Rs,2,000, the procedure prescribed has not been complied with and that the entire proceedings of remission of the rent through money order is collusive and that is why the best evidence of postman was withheld.
4. ' We have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner but cannot subscribe to his view. The respondent produced Zahoor Muhammad Khan, Town Inspector G.P.O., Peshawar (R.W.1) who produced the original record for the inspection of the Rent Controller and exhibited their copies Exhs.RW-1/1 to RW-1/20, whereby the rent was regularly remitted by the respondent through different money orders. The exhibits are the copies of different money orders showing the amount remitted and the payee's name alongwith sender's name and address. In some of the receipts the address of the payee is also mentioned and in the coupons the months for which the rent was remitted are specifically described. Presumption of occurrence is attached to every official act done in the discharge of duty and the burden had shifted to the landlord/petitioner to prove the alleged forgery or that the postman concerned deliberately derelicted his duty to tender the amount to him. Both, the Rent Controller and the learned High Court have concurrently held that the rent was duly tendered by the tenant to the landlord through its remission by money orders and that he was not a defaulter within the meaning of section 17(2)
(i) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that the mere remission of the rent through money order was not due compliance with the mandatory provision of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act and that it was legally required of him to prove that the amount remitted through money order was offered to the landlord and that he refused to receive the same. We are afraid, this was never the intention of the law-makers while providing for the remission of rent through money order under section 17 of the Act ibid nor it is practically possible. Under explanation appended to section 17 it is provided that the rent remitted by money order to the landlord, or, in case the landlord refuses to accept the rent, deposited in the office of the Controller having jurisdiction in the area where the building is situate, shall be deemed to have been duly tendered. This explanation clearly implies that the rent remitted by money order to the landlord albeit on his correct address shall be deemed to be a valid tender and it has no nexus with the refusal of the landlord to accept the rent. The responsibility of the tenant is only that he remits the rent through money order and it is not expected of him to follow the postman to its destination.
5. ' Resultantly, we do not find any legal flaw in the impugned judgment of A the High Court and decline leave to appeal and, in consequence, this petition stands dismissed.