Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 471 of 1981, decided on 6th May, 1981.

(On appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 24‑2‑1981, passed in S. A. O. No. 391 of 1978).

---S. 13(6)‑Default in payment of rent‑Striking off defence‑Peti tioner/tenant seeking condonation of delay on ground of rent having been deposited only one day after time fixed‑Held Petitioner having been given full one month or at least 15 days to deposit rent of previous months, delay in fact much more than one day‑Striking off defence being a matter of discretion with Rent Controller, interference declined.

Wasim Sajjid, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Walayat Umar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 6th May, 1981.

This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 24‑2‑1981, dismissing the petitioners S. A. O. in a rent case. 2. The facts leading to this petition are that the petitioners were tenants of Kh. Maqsoodul Hassan, respondent No. 1. The latter filed an ejectment application against the petitioner in respect of flat on the Mall Road, Lahore, on 13‑6‑1973 on the ground of default in payment of rent. On 22‑4‑1974, the Rent Controller passed an order under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 19,375 as arrears of rent and also to deposit the monthly rent by the 15th of the succeeding months. The petitioners filed an appeal against the abovenoted order in the Court of the District Judge, who suspended the order regarding deposit of arrears but did not stay the same with regard to payment of the future monthly rent. The District Judge, vide order dated 18‑10‑1975, dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent before 21‑11‑1975. These were deposited by the petitioners. In Septem ber, 1976, the landlord (respondent No. 1) raised an objection that the petitioners had defaulted in depositing the rent for the months of April, 1974 and October, 1974. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner had defaulted in the payment of the rent for the said months and struck off the petitioner's defence. The petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed. They then filed an S. A. O., in the High Court, which too, was dismissed as being without any merit.

Hence this petition.

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the learned Rent Controller had not given the petitioners sufficient opportunity to show that no default had occurred.

4. We have ourselves hoard the petitioners' learned counsel on the question and given him full opportunity to show that the petitioners had not defaulted in the payment of rent for those two months, but after hearing him, are inclined to agree with the learned. Rent Controller that there had been a default on the petitioners' part. The said contention has, there fore, no force.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that there was only one day's delay in deposit of rent for the month of October, 1974, and that delay occurred as the rent had been deposited on the 16th November, instead of 15th November. This contention overlooks the fact that in reality, the petitioner was given one full month or at least 15 days to deposit the rent of the previous months. As such if the petitioners deposited the rent one day after the time fixed, the delay in fact is much more than one day. In any case it was a matter of discretion with the learned Rent Controller, and we do not consider it a fit case to interfere with his exercise thereof. In view of the above discussion we feel that there is no merit in this petition. 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.