ABDUL, HAMEED DOGAR. J.--The petitioner Muhammad Ashraf seeks leave to appeal impugning the order dated 23-9-2002 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi, whereby. S.A.O. No,12 of 2002 was dismissed and he was directed to vacate the rented premises and deliver its possession to the respondent on or before 31-10-2002.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the 'purpose of this petition, are that on 13-7-2001 respondent Mst.Qamar Sultana filed an application for ejectment under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, VI of 1959 (hereinafter called as "the Ordinance") against the petitioner and one Ashoar Shah regarding the rented premises viz. Shop situated in building bearing property No,B-59 Commercial Centre, S/Town, Rawalpindi. The abovesaid property was owned by her father Ch.Muhammad Yaseen who had died on 7-3-2000 and after his death, the same devolved upon his legal heirs including the respondent and widow Mst.Anwari Begum, her mother who also expired on 14-5-1992. After the death of Mst.Anwari Begum, the shops situated on the ground floor of the above mentioned property were partitioned through private settlement among the legal heirs and the shop in question fell to the share of the respondent. According to the ejectment application, the said shop was rented out to the petitioner on 1-10-1990 by Shaheen Pervaiz, brother of respondent, on her behalf. According to the respondent, her brother Shaheen Pervaiz used to settle the terms of the tenancy and receive the rent on her behalf. The rate, of the rent was being enhanced according to the terms of the tenancy and the same was lastly enhanced to Rs,5,000 per month in January, 1996, whereafter, the petitioner stopped paying the rent to the respondent and started depositing the same with the Rent Controller with effect from August, 1996. He also made certain other deposits. It was further stated that the statutory increase of 25% in view of the provisions of section 5A of the Ordinance in the rent had not been effected with effect from January, 1999.
Irrespective of that, it was alleged that the petitioner had sub-letter the rented shop to Ashoar Shah and that the premises were required for personal use of the respondent as she at the relevant time was Principal in the Government High School, Mirpur Mathelo and was due to retire in the near future.
3. In rebuttal to the above averments, petitioner pleaded in his written statement that in fact there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent. According to him, Shop No,5. Occupied by him fell to the share of Shaheen Pervaiz, her brother and it was in that capacity, he rented out the said shop to him and a written tenancy agreement was entered into between them and that Shaheen Pervaiz received Rs,25000 as security as per terms of the agreement of the said shop. The petitioner further claimed that at the time of ejectment proceedings, the rate of rent was Rs,5,000 which he paid to Shaheen Pervaiz till 12th May, 1996 and thereafter started depositing the same regularly with the Rent Controller.
4. On 19-11-2001, the Rent Controller, passed an order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance and fixed the rent at the rate of Rs,6,125 per month and directed to deposit the rent from the month of January, 1999 to October, 2001 till 12-2-2001 and also the arrears after deducting the rent from previously deposited rent in the Court with further directions to deposit future rent on 15th of each month. It was on 20-2-2000, that respondent moved an application before the Rent Controller for striking off the defence and forthwith ejectment of the petitioner from shop in question which was allowed vide order dated 12-7-2002. Consequently the defence was struck off and the petitioner was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed shop to the respondent.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, which too was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, vide judgment dated 14-9-2002.
6. At the very outset, the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner contended that the impugned order and the judgments of the lower Courts, are absolutely illegal, without lawful authority and unsustainable in law. According to him, the learned.Rent Controller was not justified to pass an order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance for the deposit of the rent in this case, mainly for the reason that the petitioner had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant as the petitioner had never entered into rent deed with the respondent. In such circumstances, it was obligatory upon the Rent Controller to have framed a preliminary issue qua or with regard to existence of the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the precedent of this Court reported as Abdul Sattar Memon v. Khatri Karim Muhammad (2000 SCM R 1952).
7.' We have given our anxious thought to the above contentions and have also gone through record and proceedings of the matter.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that entire property including the rented premises belonged to the father of the respondent and on his death, the same devolved upon his legal heirs. Above property was partitioned among the legal heirs and the shop in question fell to the share of the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner/tenant failed to comply with the order dated 19-11-2001, of the Rent Controller. He neither paid the arrears after deducting the same from the rent already deposited nor continued to deposit monthly rent fixed at Rs,6,250 per month from January, 1999 onwards till filing of the instant rent application, thus, became a willful defaulter. Irrespective of this, he had also sublet the shop on rent to Ashoar Shah which was another factor resulting in his eviction from the said shop. The photo copy of the receipt of Rs,4,375 said to have been deposited by the petitioner was in fact produced in another rent application titled Muhammad Ashraf v.
Shaheen Pervaiz which deposit too was also made after the delay of more than one month.
9. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that order striking off the defence of the petitioner was rightly passed by the Rent Controller and maintained by both learned Appellate Courts, Finding no reason to interfere with their concurrent findings, the petition being devoid of any force is dismissed and leave refused. However, one month's time is given to the petitioner to vacate the rented premises and hand over its possession to the respondent.