Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 719 of 1980, decided on 8th May, 1981.

‑‑ Ss. 19(2) & 21‑Rent Controller empowered to set aside ex parte order when conditions laid down in S. 19(2) not met‑Use of word found' and words without any reasonable excuse'‑Meaning.‑[Words and phrases].

The use of the word found' and words without any reasonable excuse' clearly mean and imply that the Rent Controller has to record a finding that a notice has been served and further that the default in making reply was without any reasonable excuse. Unless findings on these two facts are recorded, the Controller cannot give full effect to subsection (2) of S. 19 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

Agha Brothers v. Tharparkar District T. B. Association 1979 C L C 831 and Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Mohomed Fazal Khan PLD 1975SC331 rel.

‑‑ Principle of natural justice deeply embedded in substratum of Legislation in spite of not being vividly expressed, held, supports proposition that before a person loses his right to defend a cause fact of his having notice of pendency of cause in a competent Tribunal necessarily to be shown‑Sind Rented Premies Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 19.

Naimur Rehman for Appellant.

Abdul Rashid Mirza for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 13th and 18th May, 1981.

On reading of the impugned order it appears to me that the learned Rent Controller was of the view that he has absolutely no powers to set aside an ex parte order. I am unable to agree with such stringent interpretation of subsection (2) of section 19 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. This provision reads as follows :‑

"(2) Where on the day fixed in the notice for the respondent to file reply, it is found that the notice has been served but the respondent has failed to file his reply without any reasonable excuse, the Controller may, proceed to make an ex parte order and after such order has been made the Controller shall have no power to rescined such order."

I find on a plain reading of this provision that in cases of this nature the Rent Controllers have to keep two facts in mind and give a finding on the same. This subsection states that it should be found that the notice has been served and further that the default in filing of reply is without reasonable excuse. The use of the word "found" and the word "without an reasonable excuse" clearly mean and imply that the Rent Controller has to record a finding that a notice has been served and further that the default in making reply was without any reasonable excuse. Unless findings on these two facts are recorded, the Controller cannot give full effect to subsection (2) of section 19 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. My attention has also been drawn to the Division Bench judgment in the case of Agha Brothers v. Tharparkar District T. B. Association (1979 C L C 831). I was a member of that Bench which delivered the judgment in that case. In addition this view would appear to be supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Mohomed Fazal Khan (P L D 1975 S C 331). In any case the principles of natural justice which are deeply embedded in the substratum of legislation in spite of not being vividly expressed, would also support the proposition that before a person loses his right to defend a cause, it is to be shown that he has notice about the pendency of a cause in a competent Tribunal.

On being pointed out both Mr. Naimur Rehman and Mr. A. Mirza have sought the following consent order

"The impugned order passed by Mr. Ali Saindino on 24‑9‑1980 in the Rent Case No. 2711/79 (Execution No. 63/1979) is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Rent Controller having jurisdiction. The Rent Controller shall proceed with this case expeditiously and dispose of the same before 30‑9‑1981. Compliance to be reported to this Court."

Appeal allowed.