1. ' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---Haji Abdus Salam Bhatti, the respondent/landlord moved an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against Haji Muhammad Ibrahim for his ejectment from Shops Nos.7 and 8 situate in Mohallah Shahpura, Uggoki Road, Sialkot on ground of default in payment of due rent. It was stated that on account of promulgation of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance 1990, the rent of the period in question stood automatically enhanced by 25% w,e,f, Ist of July, 1990. The petitioners, however, had been depositing the rent at the old rate of Rs,505 per month with the Rent Controller. The petitioner resisted the application stating that he was not guilty of wilful default. In support of his case, the respondent produced Sh. Muhammad Bashir A.W.1 and he himself appeared as A.W.2.
2. Muhammad Hussain R.W.1 was produced by the petitioner while he was also examined as R.W.2. A Rent Controller, Sialkot accepted the application of the respondent on 30th of November, 1992 passing an order of ejectment against the petitioner holding that he had committed default.
3. Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by an Additional District Judge, Sialkot on 24th of May 1993.
4. Similarly, S.A.O. No,102 of 1993 of the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 21st of November 1995 observing that the petitioner was under duty to pay the rent at the enhanced rate. The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgments of the Courts below.
5. Learned counsel submits that the respondent was required to have proved on the basis of reliable evidence that the petitioner had committed wilful default. It is added that there was no evidence brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioner failed to deposit the rent intentionally. He argues that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, rule called "ignorance of law is no excuse" will not be attracted inasmuch as it was the landlord who would ask his tenant to pay the rent at the increased rate from a specified date. It appears that it has not been done. The contentions are, undoubtedly, of first impression and as such, they need consideration.
6. ' Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted to the petitioner. Interim relief already allowed to the petitioners vide order dated 12-2-1996 would be upheld provided he continues to deposit the rent at the enhanced rate.