1. ' The brief fact, ont of hich the present writ petition arises an that the petitioner have given premises on rent to respondent No,1 vide rent deed, dated 6-21990. The rent was fixed Rs,2,000. Allegedly the rent Was raised to Rs,2,000 to Rs,3,000 in December, 1994. The petitioners filed ejectment petition against respondent No,1 on 13-1-1996 with the following grounds:---
(i) Personal need.
(ii) Default.
2. ' The Rent Controller passed order under section 13(6) on 19-3-1997. The Rent Controller fixed Rs,3,000 tentative rent and directed the respondent No,1 to deposit the same in Court within one month. The respondents are allowed to withdraw Rs, 2,000. The remaining amount shall be withdrawn by the petitioners at the final adjudication by the Rent Controller. The respondents being aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed a review petition before the Rent Controller who dismissed the same vide order, dated 16-4-1997 The respondent No,1 being aggrieved filed W.P No,11178 of 1997 in which operation of the orders of the Rent Controller was suspended vide order, dated 8-9-1997.
3. The writ petition was finally dismissed on 16-71997. The respondent No,1 being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders filed C.P.S.L.A. No,1202/L of 1997 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25-11-1997.
4. ' The operation of the impugned orders were suspended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25-11- 1997. The petition was finally dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3-2-1998. The petitioners filed application that respondent No,1 committed default as the writ petition was dismissed on 16- 7-1997 and the respondents did not deposit the enhanced rent till 24-11-1997 without justification.
5. He further stated that this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court did not extend the period of depositing the enhanced rent to respondent No, 1 before the Rent Controller. He further stated that respondent No,1 committed wilful default but both the Courts below did not consider this aspect of the case and dismissed the application . Of the petitioners without applying mind.
6. ' The learned counsel of the respondents stated that the petitioners have filed this writ petitions with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that impugned orders, dated 4-6-1998, dated 12-1-1999, dated 16-1-1999 passed by the respondent No,2 may kindly be set aside, the writ petition be accepted and the application (Annexures J and Q) for the strucking off ' defence of respondent No,1 may kindly be accepted, the respondent No,1 may also be directed to vacate the premises in dispute and handover its vacant possession to the petitioners."
7. ' He further stated that the petitioners alleged in their application, dated 26-10-1998 that the respondents failed to pay the half share of sui gas and water bill till date the arrears against the respondents come to approximately to Rs,17,000. The same was disposed of by the Rent Controller in the following terms vide order, dated 16-1-1999:--- "The petitioner is directed to produce the said bills w,e,f, April, 1996 till the month of December, 1998 on 23-1-1999, so that the amount of arrears being one-half of the total amount, be calculated and the respondent be directed to deposit the same."
8. ' The learned counsel of the respondents stated that the petitioner provided the bill to respondent as directed by the Rent Controller amounting to Rs,10,407 which was paid by the respondent in February, 1999. The petitioners cancelled these material facts and did not want ejectment petition be decided on merits. He further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the petition of the respondents on 3-2-1998 in the following terms:- "Looked at from this angle, the petitioner/tenant is still within his right to lead whatever evidence he wants to, while the hearing of the petition before the Rent Controller is current, for establishing on record that the rental should be less than Rs, 3,000. In the event of the Rent Controller determining the rental at any other amount less than Rs,3,000 the petitioner will be entitled to refund of the amount, deposited in excess thereof."
9. ' I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted fact that the petitioners filed aforesaid writ petition before this Court in which the order of the Rent Controller was suspended vide order, dated 8-9-1997. The writ petition was dismissed on 16-7-1997 subsequently respondent No,1 filed C.P.S.L.A. No,1202 of 1997 on 25-11-1997. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also suspended the operation of the order of this Court as well as the orders of the Rent Controller vide order, dated 25-11-1997. The petition of respondent No,1 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3-2-1998. The respondents deposited the excessive rent in the Court immediately. The contention of the learned counsel of the petitioners that the respondents committed wilful default is not valid as the respondent No,1 did not deposit the amount by virtue of the order of this Court, dated 8-9-1997 and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 25-11-1997. It is settled proposition of law that nobody should be penalized by the act of Court. I am fortified by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in PLD 1975 Lah.7. Even otherwise after addition of Article 2A in the Constitution the Hon'ble Supreme Court insisted that case must be decided on merits instead of technicalities as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 1989 SC 532.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit. In the interest of justice and fair play the Rent Controller is directed to decide the ejectment petition within six months from today, Parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent' Controller on 12-11-1999.
11. ' With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.