Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1‑R of 1982, decided on 2nd March, 1982.

(Against the judgment and order dated 21‑11‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in S. A. O. No. 175 of 1974).

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑

‑‑ S. 13(6)‑Deposit of rent‑Concurrent findings of Courts below on question of default in deposit of rent by tenant‑No evidence on record to show that landlord in any manner waived his right to raise question before Court‑Order of ejectment maintained by Supreme Court, in circumstances of case.

Sadiq M. Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Karam Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Bashir A. Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6.

Date of hearing : 2nd March, 1982.

.‑This is a civil petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 21‑11‑1981 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, whereby orders dated 2‑3‑1973 and 4‑7‑1974 of the Rent Controller and the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi, respectively, were upheld and the S. A. O. was dismissed with direction to parties to bear their own cost.

2. The facts are that respondent No. 1 and Fazal Muhammad (died during the pendency of the ejectment petition) sought the eviction of the petitioner from house No. E/215 Mohalla Qutubuddin, Rawalpindi on the ground of personal need and damage caused to the house by the petitioners. The learned Rent Controller, by his order dated 14‑12‑1970 under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance directed the appellants to deposit rent of the house in question in his office before 4‑1‑1971 for the period from 1‑8‑1970 to 31‑12‑1970 at the rate of Rs. 15 per month, and future rent before the 15th of each month.

3. On 22‑11‑1970 the respondent‑landlord submitted an application for striking off the defence of the petitioner as he failed to comply with the order dated 14‑12‑1970. The Court perused the receipts of the rent deposited by the petitioner and found that the rent for the month of November, 1970 was to be deposited before 4‑12‑1971 but the same was deposited on I1‑1‑1971 in violation of his order dated 14‑12‑1970, and consequently the defence of the petitioner‑ was struck off and his eviction ordered. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the learned District Judge vide his order dated 4‑7‑1974. ‑ Against this order, the petitioner filed S. A. O. before the Lahore High Court and, as stated earlier, a learned Single Judge vide his order dated 21‑11‑1.981, dismissed the same and ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the house in question and directed him to band over its possession to the respondents within two months. It is now against the impugned order that the petitioner has come up before us.

4. The main grounds are the inordinate delay of about two years between the alleged default in payment of rent and the request for striking off the defence would show that the default, if any, has been condoned by the respondent and the order of deposit of rent was confusing and it led the petitioner to believe that the rent could be deposited before January, 1971; that the house in question was jointly owned by the respondent No. 1 and Fazal Muhammad (who died on 14‑8‑1971) and the application for bringing on record the legal representatives of Fazal Muhammad was under investigation, on the date of ejectment order; that the purpose for which section 13(6) has been enacted would show that penal provision of striking off the defence would not be attracted to the facts of this case; the petitioner was always ready for make payment of the rent and for this reason there was no allegation, in the ejectment petition, of default in the payment of rent.

5. We have considered each of the above‑mentioned points raised by the learned counsel and find that ‑there is concurrent finding of the Courts below on the question of default in the deposit of rent. As regard condonation by the respondent landlord, since the treasury challans Showing deposit of rent were in the custody of the appellant and he had not placed them on the record, and when he did so, the respondent, after checking them; pointed out that the appellant. had already committed default in the payment of the rent, so his defence be struck off. It cannot, therefore, be inferred that the respondent‑landlord in any manner had waived the right to raise the question before the Court. The next contention also has no force as respondent No. 1 Mst. Jamila Begum is one of the owners and there is nothing to show that one of two co‑owners is not competent to bring the ejectment proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. We find no merit in the petition, which is, consequently, 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.