Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal from Original Order No. 39 of 1973, decided on 17th February 1980.

S. 13-Ejectment-District Judge after affirming finding of Rent Cont roller as to rent of premises being Rs. 4 p. m. ordering tenant to deposit rent for a certain period @ Rs. 20 p. m. and on failure to make deposit as such appeal to be taken as accepted, defence of tenant struck off and order of ejectment passed-Such further order passed by District Judge, held, amounted to determination of fair rent for future and such cause not permissible in proceedings under S. 13 nor could eject ment be ordered for non-payment of rent @ Rs. 20 p. m. in circumstances.

Ataullah Qureshi for Appellant.

Allah Wasaya Malik for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17th February 1980.

This appeal involves a very short question as to whether the learned District Judge after dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent could issue the directions as contained m paragraph 10 of the impugned order. The relevant observations of the learned District Judge are quoted below:-

"The result of the above conclusion is that the appeal is dismissed but the respondent is ordered to deposit the rent from 1-6-1970 to 31-12-1972 at the rate of Rs. 20 per month amounting to Rs. 600 till 6-4-1973 in the Court of the learned Rent Controller, Dera Ghazi Khan (Administrative Civil Judge). In case he fails to do so the. appeal shall be taken to have been accepted, the defence of the res pondent struck off forthwith and order of ejectment passed. In view of the complicated nature of the questions involved the parties are left to bear their own costs."

2. The respondent had filed an application for the eviction of the appellant and the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 26th July-, 1971 had dismissed the application. One of the issues framed (being Issue No. 4) was whether the appellant was hound to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 20 p. m. The learned Rent Controller had come to the finding that the respondent was entitled to receive the rent at the rate of Rs. 4 p. m. and as such the appellant had not committed any default in the payment of rent. Thus finding of the learned Rent Controller was affirmed by the learned District Judge in the following words:--

" I would therefore reject the argument. This means that the rent that could be charged by the respondent from the appellant was Rs. 4 p. m."

After affirming this finding the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to give the directions for the future or to make the order of acceptance of appeal conditional as has been done in view of the observations quoted above. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that this amounts to determination of the fair rent for the future which could not be done in the proceedings under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance or to order the forthwith eviction on account of the non-payment of the rent at the. rate of Rs. 20 as if the learned District Judge was passing the order under, section 13 (6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance.

3. In view of the above discussion this appeal is accepted and the directions contained in paragraph 10 are hereby set aside. It may be clarified that the determination of the rent was in relation to the period of default specified in the application and shall not debar the respondent from charging the rent in accordance with law in future.

M. Y. M. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.