' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.--This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against the order dated 12-2-1999 passed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissing S.A.O. No, 17 of 1999 in a rent matter.
2. The brief facts are that respondent Habib Bank Limited filed an ejectment petition under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, (hereinafter called the Ordinance) for the ejectment of the petitioners herein from the disputed rooms and garage (Property bearing No,S-83-R-I/R, Lake Road, Lahore) on the ground of bona fide personal need. The petition was contested by the petitioners on various grounds. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 4-7- 1993 directed the petitioners to deposit the future rent with effect from July 1993 onward. The respondent moved an application under section 13(6) of the Ordinance for striking off the defence of the petitioners herein on the ground that they had failed to deposit the future monthly rent within the stipulated period for the months of October to December 1992, January and February 1994, July 1994, August 1994, November 1994 and April to November 1995. The petitioners contested the application and also took the plea that the default was not willful. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application vide order dated 21-7-1997.
3. Being aggrieved of the said order the petitioners filed appeal, which came up for hearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, who after hearing the parties, perusing the material available on record and considering the case-law cited by the parties dismissed the appeal holding that the learned Rent Controller rightly reached to the conclusion while striking off the defence of the petitioners herein. It would be advantageous to reproduce paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge dated 19-11-1998 which reads as below: "11. The respondent also contended that rent for the month of January, February, July, August, and November, 1994, was also not deposited within time. Perusal of photo-copy of challan form shows that the rent for the month of January of 1994 was deposited by the appellants on 16-2-1994.
Similarly rent for the month of February, 1994 was deposited on 16-3-1994, though the same should have been deposited up till 14-3-1994. Rent for the month of July, 1994 was deposited on 20th of August, 1994 and the challan form was got signed by the learned Rent Controller on 16-8-1994 though it should have been deposited up till 14-8-1994. Rent for the month of November, 1994 was deposited on 15-12-1994 though it should have been deposited up till 14-12-1994.
12. Rent for the month of April to June, 1995 was deposited by the appellants through one challan.
Photo copy of same shows that challan form was got signed by the Rent Controller on 24-5-1995.
The date of deposit of rent is not visible. However, there can be no two opinions that it was not deposited up till 24-5-1995 when the challan form was got signed by the learned Rent Controller. At the most it was deposited on 24-5-1995 the day when challan form was got signed by learned Rent Controller. Though rent for the months of May and June, 1995 was deposited well within time but admittedly rent for the month of April, 1994 which was to be deposited uptil 14-5-1995 was deposited on 24-5-1995 and as such there is non-compliance of order with reference to deposit of rent for the month of April, 1995. Photocopy of challan form show that challan form of deposit of rent for the month of July, 1995 was got signed by learned Rent Controller on 15-8-1995. Probably it was deposited on 21-8-1995 the day is not so visible but it is an admitted fact that it was not deposited uptil 14-8-1995 because the challan form was got signed on 15-8-1995. Rent for month of August, 1995 was deposited on 19-9-1995 though it should have been deposited uptil 14-8-1995.
Rent for the month of September, 1995 was deposited after 16-10-1995 as is evident from date of allowing the challan form because date of deposit is not visible. Similarly rent for the month of November, 1995 was deposited on 10-12-1995, though it should have been deposited uptil 14-12- 1995. The reference of above facts clearly derogates that there is clearly violation of order under section 13(6) of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance on behalf of the present appellants which was also frankly confessed by present appellants in preliminary objection No,2(e) of the written reply which is reproduced in for ready reference. Preliminary Objection No,2(e) that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to prove the wilful default. Anyhow the monthly rent is being deposited as mentioned in the application. Certain delay in the deposit of rent does not amount to be wilful default."
4. Being dissatisfied the petitioners filed S.A.O. No,17 of 1999 in the High Court contending therein that the ejectment application filed by the respondent was not through lawfully constituted attorney and, therefore, in the absence of the framing of issue as to the competency of the ejectment petition, no order for ejectment could be passed. The learned Judge in Chambers repelled the above objection with the following observation: "3. I am afraid that the said judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The question of default under section 1.3(6) was not an issue in the said case, rather the allegations in the petition were of default in payment of rent and the relationship of landlord and tenant denied. Consequently, an appropriate issue was framed and after the finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists, ejectment order was passed on the principle of forfeiture of tenancy. Whereas, in the present case the appellant had admitted the relationship and an order was passed under section 13(6) for tentative fixation of rent, and thus, the appellant was bound to comply with the said order. In case the objection taken by the appellant regarding defect in the institution of the petition was upheld and if the ejectment petition was dismissed on this account, the appellant could withdraw the amount so deposited, but the appellant had no valid reason to disregard the order. Even in compliance of the order the appellant had been making the deposit of certain amounts except the period of default, ' It may be pertinent to state here that the question of validity in institution of a suit or a petition may not always be fatal, such defects are curable and can be removed. Even on this account, to say that the order under under section 13(6) was a void and illegal order, thus, its non-compliance would not entail ejectment, has not force in law. This appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed in limine."
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. The High Court has duly considered and rightly repelled the contentions which have been now reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioners. This case is also barred by 4 days and we do not find any sufficient ground to condone the delay. The question of default is concluded by a concurrent finding of fact by the Courts below to which no exception can be taken.
6. No interference is called for with the well-reasoned impugned order.
7. Resultantly, leave to appeal is declined and the .