SAEED-UR-REHMAN FARRUKH, J.- By this judgment I propose to dispose of the following cases as common questions of law and facts arise therein:
1. SAO No. 129/97
2. SAO No. 130/97
3. SAO No. 131797
4. SAO No. 132/97
2. This second appeal under Section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 by a tenant is directed against the judgment of learned Additional District Judge dated 25.9.1997 whereby the appeal of the respondent- landlord assailing the order of Rent Controller dated 9.7.1996 rejecting the ejectment application filed by the respondent against the appellant was allowed and the appellant was ordered to be evicted from the disputed premises.
3. The ejectment application was based on the ground that the appellant had default in payment of enhanced rent in terms of Section 5-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and as such had rendered himself liable to be evicted.
Learned Addl. District Judge placed reliance on judgment of this Court as Haji Muhammad Ibrahim, v. Haji Abdus Salam Bhatti (PLJ 1996 Lah. 394) to hold that enhancement of rent was automatic in terms of the above provision of law and since the appellant had failed to pay enhanced rent therefore he had rendered himself liable to be evicted.
4. The law on the point stands now finally settled in National Development Finance Corporation, Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-Azam Lahore, v. Sh. Naseem-ud-Din and 4 others (PLD 1997 SC 564) to the effect that it is only after the service of notice in writing by the landlord for enhanced rent that the tenant becomes liable-to pay rent at enhanced rate, it is clear that the dictum of Haji Muhammad Ibrahim v. Haji Abdul Salam Bhatti (PLJ 1996 Lah. 394) is no longer good law and it stands ever- ruled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
5. In this view of the matter, the appellant could not be treated to be a wilful defaulter and the learned Additional District Judge had erred in law in accepting the appeal of the respondent and ordering the ejectment of the appellant.
6. Admittedly, no notice for payment of enhanced rent was served by the respondent upon the appellant.
7. For what has been stated above, these appeals are accepted and the impugned judgments of learned Additional District Judge are set aside with the result that orders of the Rent Controller rejecting the ejectment application shall hold the field. No costs.