Find a Lawyer

2. The respondent, a registered partnership, filed an application on 17-2-1972 under section 13 of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) contending that the appellants were its tenants of premises comprising a shop, a show-case and a room over the shop situate at 75, Shahra-i-Qaid-Azam, Lahore on a monthly rent of Rs. 850 since 1-11-1969. The only ground on which eviction was sought was their failure to pay rent since September, 1970 to January, 1972, on which account it was said a sum of Rs. 14,450 was due.

3. In reply and while contesting this petition the appellants took up the objection that there was a civil suit pending with respect to the same matter and the ejectment proceedings could not continue in the face of it. On merits it was stated that the rent was of Rs. 650 p.m. and not Rs. 850 p.m. The allegation of default was totally denied and the following defence was taken up :-

"The petitioners have received a sum of Rs. 30,000 as advance rent and have further received sum of Rs. 8,770 from time to time as advance toward rent. They had asked the respondent to incur another sum of Rs. 20,000 towards electric fittings decoration, paints and fittings and fixtures which the respondent has done on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent is thus eligible to remain in tenancy till the end of the month of April, 1978, until the Rs. 58,770 the amount paid is concerned towards rent of the premises. The respondents are neither defaulters nor liable to be ejected."

4. A replication was filed in which the respondent-landlord reiterated that the rent was Rs. 850 pm. and denied having ever received advance rents or to have authorised the expenditure on additions, alterations or improvements of the premises.

5. The Rent Controller framed the following issues on doe pleadings of the parties :-

< [if supportLists]>(1) Whether the petition is not maintainable

(2) What is the correct rate of rent of premises in dispute

(3) Whether the ,respondent has paid or tendered the rent due within time

(4) Relief.

6. The Rent Controller on 3-1-1975 made a tentative order under sub section (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance calling upon the tenants to furnish bank guarantee for the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 30,000. An appeal was preferred against that order to the Additional District Judge who con firmed that order. In second appeal the learned Judge in the High Court modified the order and permitted the tenant to give personal security for the payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 30,000 to the satisfaction of the Rent Controller. However, in disposing of the second appeal the learned Judge in the High Court made the following observations which have been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants and reproduced verbatim

"As the tenancy was oral there is absolutely no document to show what was the nature of the amount of Rs. 30,000 which admittedly was paid by the appellant to the respondent. After evidence is produced it will be decided by the learned Rent Controller what was the nature of that amount but since admittedly the appellant has paid such a huge amount in cash it is not convenient for him to give bank security when the interest of the respondent can be secured by a personal security. If the amount of Rs. 30,000 was paid as a debt it can be adjusted towards rent if it is not returned by the landlord. Since the amount is with the landlord there is no need of any further security."

7. After recording the evidence the Rent Controller recorded the finding that Rs. 850 was the monthly rent as claimed by the landlord and not Rs. 650 as claimed by the appellants. On the other issue in contest between the parties it was held that the payment of Rs. 30,000 to one of the partners of the firm was not as advance rent and that it did not save the appellants against the default in making payment of the rent. The Rent Controller in deference .to the direction given by the learned Judge in the High Court held that "it is important to note that the said amount was paid by R. W. 6 as a discharge of the debt, which otherwise in the law, is not adjustable in the future rent". The ejectment of the appellants was ordered on the ground of default.

8. On appeal preferred by the tenant learned Additional District Judge armed the finding that Rs. 850 was the monthly rent and not Rs. 650 and as regards a sum of Rs. 30,000 the appellate authority held that "this fact clearly establishes that in reality the said amount was never paid to the landlord as advance rent". The appellate authority did not record a finding that the amount of Rs. 30,000 paid to one of the partners was a repayment of the debt as clAimed by that partner. This refrain was justified by the learned Addi tional District Judge by relying on the case of Messrs Chaudhary Brothers Ltd., Sialkot v. The Jaranwala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaranwala and others (1968 S C M R 804) that no evidence could be led or decision given on facts neither cited in the pleadings nor incorporated in the issues framed. He maintained the order of ejectment.

9. In second appeal the learned Judge in the High Court affirmed the findings

by holdings as follows :-

"All this indicates that amount of Rs. 30,000 was not paid as advance rent and it was only after the appellants were confronted with the plea of default that they thought of making use of it for avoiding the finding of default."

10. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the earlier order (reproduced) of the learned Judge in the High Court operated as res judicata between the parties as it finally determined that a sum of rupees thirty thousand was admittedly "paid by the appellants to the respondent and that "if the amount of Rs. 30,000 was paid as a debt it can be adjusted towards rent if it is not returned by the landlord". Further, the learned counsel for the appellants relying on the same order submitted that irrespec tive of the pleadings and the issues the Rent Controller was under a duty to decide at the end what was the nature of the amount". According to the learned counsel, the stand of the respondent with regard to the receipt of this amount was inconsistent and untenable while that of the appellants was con sistent as other tenants in the same building had also been called upon to make similar deposits of security or advance. Finally, relying on the decision of this Court in Muhammad Yusuf v. Abdullah (P L D 1980 S C 298) it has been submitted that in any case the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the appel lants because the respondent owed them more money than could at that time be claimed by the respondent as rent due.

11. The jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is defined and limited to matters specified in the Ordinance. His jurisdiction is not plenary but is restricted. It follows therefore that irrespective of the dimension and scope of the controversy between the parties before him he can adjudicate only on, mattes prescribed in the Ordinance or questions ancillary and necessary adjuncts to those within his jurisdiction. Both the parties to these proceedings showed the awareness of the principles and limitation so far as the stage of pleadings was concerned. The landlord alleged default. The tenant pleaded advance payment of rent, and authorised expenditure adjustable towards rent due. Not a word more was pleaded. The issue framed fully covered the controversy. A dispute even between landlord and tenant over money, lending, borrowing and repayment, if totally unconnected with the tenancy, its terms and enjoyment, is not entertainable by the Rent Controller. In view of the nature of jurisdiction of the Rent Controller and the pendency of a' civil suit on the subject the Rent Controller would not have been justified in deciding what was the nature of the payment. His finding that it was a loan or loan repaid would have been in excess of jurisdiction, would have been of no value, in determining the liability or in the matter of granting relief concerning that amount.