Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 457 of 1974, decided on 14th November, 1975.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court made on the 15th of January, 1974 in S. A. O. No. 238 of 1973).

-- S. 13 (6)-Order for deposit of rent-Provisions of S. 13 (6) Mandatory and have to be given effect to unless default shown to be not wilful-Petitioners ordered to deposit rent by a specified date but failing to deposit rent by such date and failing to show default being due to causes beyond their control or due to unavoidable circumstances, default, held, to be regarded as wilful attracting penalty prescribed in S. 13(6), i.e. striking off defence.

Ghulam Muhammad Khan Lundkhor v. Sardar Ali P L D 1972 S C 530 ref.

S. M. Chaudhry Advocate and Sh. Abdul. Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 14th November, 1975.

-This petition seeks leave to appeal against the order made by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 15th January, 1914, dismissing in limine the second appeal filed by the peti tioners to challenge the order of the learned Rent Controller striking off their defence under section 13 (6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.

In an ejectment application filed against the petitioners by the respondent. the Rent Controller made an order on 18th July, 1972, directing the petitioners o deposit the arrears of rent upto 31st July, 1972, at the rate of Rs. 2(', p.m. by or before the 2nd of September, 1972. He also directed that the future rent of the premises should be deposited by the 15th of each succeeding month. On the 6th of March, 1973, the respondent made an application before the Rent Controller for striking off the defence of the petitioners on the ground that they had not deposited the rent for the month of August, 1972 by the 15th of September, 1972, This application was allowed by the Rent Controller by his order dated the 14th of July, 1973, as he found that the rent for the month of August, 1972, was not deposited by the petitioners until the 6th of October, 1972.

Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed an appeal which was rejected by the learned District Judge by his order dated the 29th of September, 1973, and a second appeal has also been dismissed by the High Court. All the Courts below have taken the view that the order made by the Rent Controller on the 18th of July, 1972, was clear, and there was no scope for misunderstanding or misinterpreting the same, and accordingly there was clear default on the part of the petitioners, which attracted the penalty prescribed under section 13 (6) of the Ordinance.

Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the Courts below have erred in not framing a specific issue on the question whether the default committed by the petitioners was wilful or not ; and that in any case from the facts and circumstances appearing on the record it was clear that the default could not be wilful or intentional, as the petitioners had deposited the arrears of rent promptly within the prescribed time and they had also deposited future rent for 3 months on the 6th of October, 1972. It is submitted that in these circumstances their failure to deposit the rent for the month of 1972 before the 15th of September, 1972, was due to a misunderstanding of the import of the Rent Con troller's order dated the 18th of July, 1972. 1n support of' these submis sions the learned counsel has placed reliance on Ghulam Muhammad Khan Lundkhor v. Sardar Ali P L D 1972 S C 539.

We regret we see no substance in these submissions. The order made by the Rent Controller on the 18th of July, 1972, was clear and unambiguous, and there could be no question of misinterpreting or misunderstanding this order. For the same reason, there was no necessity of framing any specific issue on the point. The position is/ simple, namely, that the petitioners did fail to pay the rent for the month of August, 1972, by or before the stipulated date, and the explanation tendered for the failure is clearly untenable. This was, therefore, a case in which default had indeed been committed in complying with the order of the Rent Controller.

In the case referred to by the learned counsel, it has been held that the provisions of section 13 (6) of the Ordinance are mandatory, an have to be given effect to, unless it can be shown that the default is not wilful. As in the present case the petitioners have failed to show that the default was due to causes beyond their control or due to unavoidable circumstances, it is clear that the default has to be regarded as wilful, thus attracting the penalty prescribed in the said section.

As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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