Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 1122 of 1982, decided on 17th March, 1983.

‑‑S. 16(2)‑‑Rate of rent‑Non‑compliance of tentative rent order -Tentative rent order passed by Rent Controller after summary enquiry as to rate of rent after taking into consideration objec tions of rent‑Fact that tenant in possession of evidence not brought to notice of Rent Controller to bring same on record- No information laid for requiring Rent Controller to record any evidence before passing tentative rent order‑Tentative rent order with condition that disputed portion of rent will not be with drawn by landlord till final disposal of case, held, not illegal or arbitrary.

‑‑‑S. 16‑Tentative rent order passed by Rent Controller legal and neither arbitrary nor perverse‑‑Non‑compliance of such order Defence of tenant, held, liable to be struck off ipso facto.

P L D 1959 Kar. 454; P L D 1958 Kar. 42; 1979 C L C 752 and P L D 1961 Lah. 410 rel.

-‑S.16‑Tentative rent order‑Summary enquiry held by Rent Controller‑Nature of objections filed by tenant not warranting recording of evidence by Rent Controller before passing tentantive rent order‑Tenant failing to comply with order‑Ejectment, order ed in circumstances.

Naseem Ahmed v. Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller 1983 S C M R 204 ref.

S. Hamid Ali for Appellant.

Kamaluddin for Respondent.

This order will dispose off F. R. A. 1121/82 as well as F. R. A. 1122/82. as facts are similar and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are the same in both these appeals. In both cases, respondent/landlord is the same. In both cases, ejectment applications had been filed for the ejectment of the appellants. House is the same, one ejectment application was filed in respect of tenement No. 1 in the occupation of one tenant and the other ejectment application was filed for the eject ment of the tenant from tenement No. 2 of the same house. In one case the respondent had claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 300 per month and in the other at the rate of Rs. 250 per month whereas in both cases the appellant/tenant's pleas was that the rent was Rs. 100 per month. In both cases tentative rent order was passed on 24th May, 1982 by the Rent Controller directing the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent at the rents claimed by the respondent with the condition that the dis puted portions of the rents will not be withdrawn by the respondent till final disposal of the cases. There has been admitted defaults by both the appellants in complying with the rent orders, dated 24th May, 1982. Applications were filed under section 16 (2) of the 1979 Ordin ance by the respondent. In both the cases objections were filed by the appellants reiterating their earlier stand that the rent was Rs. 100 per month in each case and that without recording evidence the tentative rent orders were passed by the Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller passed impugned orders, dated 23rd October, 1982 striking off the defence of the tenants in the two cases and ordered their ejectment. These appeals have been filed challenging the orders of the Rent Con troller.

2. I have heard Mr. S. Hamid Ali, learned counsel for the appellants in the two appeals. First contention of learned counsel for the appel lants is that an enquiry was required to be made by the Rent Controller before passing the tentative rent orders and in the instant cases no enquiries were made and resultantly the orders are illegal and as a consequence the ejectment orders are also illegal. In reply to the applica tions under section 16 (1) filed by the respondent. Objections were filed by the appellants in which, as observed earlier, the same plea was raised about claiming of higher rent by the respondent. In para. 4 of the objections in both cases, the appellant took up the following plea :

"(4) That the tenant has been paving rent regularly to the applicant and had not committed any default and had paid upto March, 1981 to the tenant and is in possession of evidence to prove this fact."

It was contended by the learned counsel that evidence should have been recorded by the Rent Controller before passing the tentative rent orders and as this was not done and no enquiry was held, the tentative rent orders are arbitrary and illegal.

3. In my view a summary enquiry was held by the Rent Controller in each case as the objections of the appellants were taken into consideration. It was not necessary in the facts of these cases, to record evidence before passing the tentative rent orders. No request or application was made on behalf of the appellants for recording any evidence. Only a general vague statement was made in the objections that the appellants were in possession of certain evidence. No attempt was made to indicate what was the nature or substance of such evidence in possession of the appellants. No foundation was laid for requiring the Rent Controller to record any evidence before passing the tentative rent orders. Further. I find that the Rent Controller had placed a condition in his tentative rent orders that the disputed portion of the rents will not be withdrawn by the respondent. I see no illegality or arbitrariness in the tentative rent orders passed by the Rent Controller. There is an admitted non‑com pliance by the applicants of the tentative rent orders.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants had relied upon P L D 1959 Kar. 454, P L D 1958 Kar. 42, 1979 C L C 752 and P L D 1961 Lah. 410. None of these reported judgments support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in the facts of the present cases. Further, its may be observed that if the tentative rent order passed by a Rent Controller is a legal order and is neither arbitrary nor perverse, in case of its non‑compliance, the defence of the tenant is liable to be struck off ipso facto.

5. Learned counsel bad also relied upon an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan granting leave to appeal reported in Naseem Ahmed v. Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller (1983 S C M R 204). It may be observed that the said order is an order granting leave and is not a judgment or order laying down any law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In any case, according to me a summary enquiry was held by the Rent Controller in the instant cases and in view of the nature of objections filed on behalf of the appellants it was not required of the Rent Controller to record evidence before passing the tentative rent orders.

6. I see no merit in these appeals which are dismissed in limine. The appellants are, however, granted time till 30th June, 1983 to vacate the premises.

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.