Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 380 of 1980, decided on 26th October, 1981.

------S. 13(6)‑Defence, striking off‑Tenant committing default in depo siting current rent‑Contention that tenant used to pay monthly rent through some Advocate who was her neighbour, held, had no force‑Rent Controller's order specific and definite‑Tenant to be vigilant and to comply with same ‑Very fact default being constant and for a long time, would show carelessness on part of tenant which cannot be condoned.

M. Najmuddin Qureshi for Appellant.

Mehfoozul Haq for Respondent.

Date of hearing ; 26th October, 1981.

The appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 12th April, 1980 passed by the First Rent Controller on the application of respondent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, striking off the defence of the appellant on the ground that she bad failed to comply with the tentative rent order passed on 16‑1‑1979.

The facts of the case, as briefly stated in the petition, are that on 4th May, 1978 the respondent filed application under section 13 of the Ordinance on three grounds, namely, (1) that appellant had defaulted in payment of rent from April, 1977 till April, 1978; (2) that the shop was required for personal use of the respondent; and (3) that the appellant had made some alterations and changes in the shop. After service of notice on the appellant the learned Rent Controller passed a tentative rent order on 16‑1‑1979 directing the appellant to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2,700 at the rate of Rs. 150 per month within one month of the date of the order. It was further directed that the appellant deposit monthly rent before 15th of each month. On 21‑11‑1979 the respondent filed application under section 13(6) of the Ordinance praying for striking off the defence of the appellant as she had failed to comply with the order passed on 16‑1‑1979.

I have heard Mr. M. Najmuddin Qureshi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mahfoozul Hiq, the learned counsel for the, respondent. It is admitted position that, although the arrears of rent were paid well within time in compliance with the order of the learned Rent Controller, there was obvious default in the payment of current monthly rent which had to be paid before f2th of each calendar month. It is admitted that the rent for the months of May and June, 1979 was deposited on 17‑9‑1979 and the rent for the months of July, August and September, 1979 was paid on 9‑10‑1979. The rent for the month of October, 1979 was deposited on 11‑12‑1979. The rent for the‑‑months of December, 1979, January and February, 1980 was deposited on 11‑3‑1930. It is very obvious from these admitted facts that there yeas default in the depositing of current rent as alleged by the respondent, and the only ground taken in this appeal is that the appellant used to pay .the, monthly rent through some advocate who was her neighbour and who used to deposit the same in the court. It was for the appellant to be vigilant and to comply with the order of the learned Rent Controller which was specific and definite about the date by which the rent for the current and of every month had to be deposited. The very fact that default was constant and for a long time would show the carelessness on the part of the appellant which cannot be condoned under the law. Before any such explanation is accepted it should at least show that compliance with the order of the learned Rent Controller was due to unavoidable circumstance riot within the control of the appellant. It was for the appellant, after knowing about the directive to, deposit the rent by the due date. I, therefore, do not find any weight in this appeal which is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. Appeal 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.