Find a Lawyer

‑‑S. 13 (6)‑Striking off defence‑Rent Controller passing order for deposit of arrears of rent tentatively‑Contention that such order could not be passed without recording evidence to find out arrears due‑Held, had no force‑It is only after compliance of such order that Rent Controller would have allowed parties to produce evidence to show whether or not default made in payment of rent Orders of Rent Controller not complied with‑Defence rightly struck off.

Ch. Abdur Rehman Cheema for Appellant.

The appellant, a tenant, was ordered to be ejected on the ground that he had failed to comply with an order of deposit of rent made under section 13 (6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Rent Controller had ordered on 15th February, 1978 that Rs. 1,800 be deposited before 4th March, 1978 being the tentative rent of the house in dispute for the period from June, 1976 to January, 1978 at the rate of Rs. 90 p.m. On 4th March, 1978 the defence of the appellant was struck off under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and he was granted one month's time to vacate the premises, The Rent Controller also made a final order against the appellant for pay ment of Rs. 1,800 to the respondent which order could be executed as a decree, had it not been se: aside in appeal.

2. That learned Additional District Judge, upheld the order of the Rent Controller so far as it related to the appellant's ejectment but set aside the order so far as it related to the payment of Rs. 1,800 on the ground that the amount of the arrears had only been arrived at ten tatively.

3. In this second appeal the appellant has now challenged the order for his ejectment. It is submitted that the appellant's defence could not have been struck off because no order for deposit of arrears could have been made in this case, as no rent was due. It is submitted that the appellant had got sui‑gas pipes and other fittings installed in the premises with the consent of the landlord, and had spent Rs. 2,100 in this connec tion. This amount of money he was entitled to deduct from the rent, and as such no arrears were due. It. is contended that before an order for deposit of rent could be made, the Rent Controller should have re corded evidence to find out if any money was due at all. Reliance is placed on Aahfaqur Rehman v. Ch. Muhammad Afzal (PLD1968SC230) in which case, it was observed that arrears beyond 3 years could not be ordered to be de posited by the Rent Controller. In the present case the arrears that were ordered, related to a period within 3 years of filing the application for ejectment. The observations made in that case, therefore, are not relevant for a decision of the present case. The order of deposit of rent was made by the Rent Controller after determining the arrears tentatively. I do 'no agree with the submission that the Rent Controller should first have recorded evidence to find out whether any arrears were due, and then made an order of deposit under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. It is only if the appellant had complied with the order of deposit that the Rent Controller would have allowed the parties to produce evidence to show whether or not any default bad been made in the payment of rent. It is also to be noticed that the Rent Controller had ordered that none of the parties were allowed to draw any money from the Court. It is, therefore, obvious that the order of deposit was made on a tentative finding, and a final adjudication was yet to be made. This is in conformity with that requirements of the law.

4. Under the circumstances, I find that the appellant's defence was rightly struck off on account of non‑compliance with the order made by the Rent Controller. There is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed in limine.

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.