Find a Lawyer

Second Rent Appeal No. 169 of 1978, decided on 2nd September, 1980.

‑‑ Ss. 13 (6) & 15 (4)‑Second appeal‑Defence, striking off‑Default in payment of rent‑Non‑compliance of order of Rent Controller wilful and deliberate‑Tenant's defence, held, rightly struck off.

Karar Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 1st September, 1980.

This is a Second Appeal under section 15 (4) of the West Pakistan Urban Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the judgment date d 17‑4‑1978 Rent passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi rejecting the appeal against the order dated 25‑3‑1977 passed by the Rent Controller in Rent Case No. 904/75.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal, briefly stated, are that on 22nd March, 1975 the respondent filed an application under section 13 of the Ordinance inter alia on the ground of non‑payment of rent for 12 months preceding the filing of the application, i. e. from April, 1974. On 23rd September, 1975, the learned Rent Controller passed an order under section 13(6) ordering the appellant to deposit in Court a sum of Rs.4,360 within two months from the date of the order and continue depositing the current monthly rent before 15th of every succeeding month. On 22nd of October, 1975 the appellant filed an application before the Rent Controller to. review the order dated 23‑9‑1975 already passed by him. During the pendency of the said review application the appellant filed a miscellaneous application dated 11‑11‑1975 requesting for anti‑dating the hearing of the review application which was fixed for 17‑11‑1975 as the date for depositing rent in terms of the order passed on 23‑8‑1975 was to expire on 14‑11‑1975. The learned Controller on 12‑11‑1975 passed an order suspending the earlier order dated 23‑9‑1975 till next date, i.e. 17‑11‑1975. The review application filed by the appellant on 22‑10‑1975 was, however, dismissed by the Rent Controller by order dated 17‑7‑1976. Meanwhile a development took place that during the pendency of the review application the respondent had filed an application dated 21‑5‑1976 for striking off the defence of the appellant for non‑compliance of the order of the Rent c; Controller dated 23‑9‑1975. This application for striking off the defence was allowed by the learned Rent Controller by his order dated 25‑3‑1977 against which the appellant filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed by his order dated 17‑4‑1978. The appellant has now filed this 2nd appeal against the said order. .

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the review application was dismissed on 17‑7‑1976 and so he was absolved from depositing the rent till that date, by virtue of the order of suspension passed on 12‑11‑1975 because it was a case of suspension and not stay. He has cited no authority in support of his contention. I am afraid the contention is ill‑founded and entirely misconceived. There was a valid order passed by the Rent Controller on 23rd of September, 1975 which was however, suspended by him by his order dated 12‑11‑1975 but suspension could be operative till next date of hearing which was 17‑11‑1975 as the order dated 12‑11‑1975 itself made it clear. Therefore, in my view, the order dated 23rd September, 1975 became operative as on and from 18‑11‑1975. In view of the fact that. there was no extension of the order of suspension as referred to above the direction to deposit the rent as contained in order dated 23‑9‑1975 had become operative, i.e., for 2 months thereafter. In view of the admitted position that the appellant did not deposit any rent till the defence was struck off by the order of the Rent Controller dated 25‑3‑1977, 1 have no doubt in my mind that the non‑compliance of the order was wilful and deliberate.

In the result the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.