IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J.- The respondent filed an ejectment petition in respect of shop No. 12, Goorha Road, Mand Bahauddin, which is in possession of the appellant as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 720/- per month on the grounds of damage, personal use and default in the payment, of rent from February, 1991 to September, 1991. The appellant appeared and contested the petition. He, in respect of default pleaded that he bad spent a sum of Rs. 6,200/- on installation of electric meter in the shop and the landlady agreed to adjust the same towards the rent from February 1991 to October 1991, therefore, she is estopped by her own conduct to alleged default in the payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller passed order under Section 13(6) directing the appellant to deposit the arrears as well as the future monthly rent and then framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the rent of Rs. 6200/- has been adjusted between the parties as alleged in preliminary objection No. Bay of the written reply? OPR
(2) Whether the petitioner is estoppel by her words and conduct to bring this application? OPR
(3) Whether the petitioner has not come with clean hands? OPR
(4) Whether the respondent is defaulter as alleged in the application? OPA
(5) Whether the respondent damaged the disputed shop? OPA
(6) Whether the petitioner is in need of the disputed shop for her person? OPA
(7) Relief.
Thereafter, the learned Rent Controller fixed the ejectment petitioner for the evidence of the respondent, who examined Faiz Muhammad, Attorney as AW1 and Ghulam Hussain as AW2. The appellant appeared himself and closed his side. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the arguments proceeded to accept the ejectment petition vide order dated 7.8.1992, which was assailed through an appeal before the appellate authority, who proceeded to dismiss the appeal vide order dated 13.9.1994. Therefore, now present second appeal, which came up for limine hearing or. 1.1.11994 when preadmission notice was issued to the respondent, who was entered appearance through Ch. Abdul Wahid, Advocate and contested the appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that issues Nos. 5 and 6 as to damage and personal need Were decided against the landlady. It was only on the findings of issues No. 4 as to default that ejectment has been ordered. It is argued that the landlady failed to prove default in the payment of rent from February to September, 1991. It is maintained that even if issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the respondent still default was to be proved independently and the same remained unproved.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that Issues Nos. 1 and 4 were interdependent, therefore, rightly decided by the two Courts below together., In is added that the appellant failed to rebut the evidence of the respondent that the matter was not installed in the shop with her consent and she never agreed to bear the expenses. The arguments are summed up with the submission that it is a case of concurrent findings of fact. The appellant has failed to make out a case for interference in the second appeal.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The appellant in the written reply raised following preliminary objection:- ((Urdu Text))
It is dear from his preliminary objection that the appellant conceded that he has not paid the rent for the period in dispute. He claimed that the amount was adjusted as per arrangement between the parties towards the expenses of installation of electric meter in the shop but he failed to lead any evidence to prove the consent of the landlady. This is not all. Even it is not proved that in whose favour the meter was installed and what is the details of the expenditure. The arrears of rent for the period was Rs. 5760/- whereas according to the above preliminary objection he has spent Rs.
62000/- on this count. This discrepancy in the two figures remained unexplained throughout the proceeding and is sufficient to disbelieve the contention of adjustment. This is a concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below. The appellant has failed to males out a case for interference in the second appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, the appellant is allowed time up to 31.10.1995 to handover the vacation possession of the shop to the landlady.