Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1866 of 1981, decided on 6th June 1981.

--- S. 13 (6)-Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent Period allowed for making deposit of rent-Cannot be curtailed by Rent Controller-Order of ejectment made by Rent Controller eight days before expiry of period allowed for deposit of rent by stricking off defence of tenant on ground of default in deposit of rent-Held, without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.

Malik Muhammad Qayyum for Appellants.

Kh. Muhammad Akram for Respondents Nos. I and 2.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

Dates of hearing : 18th May and 6th June 1981.

Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Khalid Rashid and another, herein after referred to as the respondents, made an application against the three petitioners, namely, Muhammad Siddiq, Muhammad Ameen and Messrs Ameen Corporation, for their ejectment from certain premises. The Rent Controller who was seized of the ejectment proceedings, made an order, under the first part of subsection (6) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance, directing the petitioners to deposit future rent for each month before the 15th day of the succeeding month. After the making of that order, rent for the month of October, 1980 was deposited by S. M. Siddiq Ltd. on 14th October, 1980. This deposit was taken exception to by the respondents on the ground that it was not made by the petitioners. They also prayed that their defence be struck off. Accordingly, on 6th November, 1980, the learned Rent Con troller struck off the defence of the petitioners and ordered their eviction under the second part -af Subsection (6) of section 13 of the said Ordinance. This order of the learned Rent Controller was challenged by the petitioners by means of an appeal before an Additional District Judge but without success. They have, therefore, filed the writ petition in hand to assail the orders of the two tribunals below.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if the deposit made by S. M. Siddiq Ltd. was not a valid deposit, the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to strike off their defence before the 15th November, 1980, because the petitioners could be treated as defaulters only if they had not deposited rent for October, 1980 by 14th November, 1980, at the latest.

3. On the other band, it was urg by learned counsel for the respon dents that the petitioners had deliberately made tqe deposit in question in the name of an unauthorised person and since they had insisted that the deposit

thus made was valid, the learned Rent Controller was justified in making the impugned order on 6th November, 1980.

4. As indicated above, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, under the first part of subsection (6) of section 13 of the said Ordinance, fitted the petitioners to deposit rent for October, 1980 before 15th' November, 1980 . The period allowed by him for making the deposit in question could not be curtailed by the Rent Controller while making the above order or at any subsequent stage because it has been laid down in the said provision of law that the Rent Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case, before the fifteenth day of each month, the monthly rent due from him. The petitioners' default qua the rent for October, 1980 would have been there if they had not deposited the same by 14th November, 1980, but they had still eight days with them to deposit the said rent that the learned Rent Controller had, on 6th November, 1980, struck off their defence on the ground that they had made default in com pliance with his order in regard to deposit of rent for the month of October. Obviously, this order had been prematurely made by the learned Rent Con troller inasmuch as it had been passed before the period allowed to the petitioners to make the deposit had run out. If the learned Rent Controller had felt on 6th November, 1980 that the deposit made by S. M. Siddiq Ltd. for the month of October was not a valid deposit and he wanted that to be known to the petitioners he should have on the said date made an interim order to the effect that the deposit made by S. M. Siddiq Ltd. was not the deposit as contemplated by his order and then adjourned the respondents' application for striking off the defence to 15th November, 1980 or some other subsequent date for final disposal. Alternatively, he could just keep quiet till the period available to the petitioners to make the deposit had expired. Even if the petitioners bad pleaded till 6th November, 1980 that the deposit made by S. M. Siddiq Ltd. was alright, the possibility of a better sense prevailing on them during the subsequent period of eight days could not be ruled out, especially if the learned Rent Controller had made an interim order as aforesaid on 6th November, 1980. In other words, they could, at any time during the said period of eight days, make another deposit in their own name with a view to avoiding the legal consequences of a deposit which, according to the respondents, was improper. To cut the matter short, the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to dub the petitioners as defaulters till the last moment of the 14th day of November, 1980, had gone by. The order of ejectment made by him on 6th November, 1980, by striking off the defence on the ground of default in the deposit of rent for the month of October, 1980 was therefore, without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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