Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.396 of 1981, decided on 12th February, 1984.

‑‑‑S.13‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑Ejectment‑‑Application to deposit rent‑‑Delay in payment of rent by tenant as per terms of compromise between parties and not due to unavoidable cause, but entirely due to his own carelessness‑‑Application rightly disallowed and tenant was, held, liable to be ejected in execution of order of Rent Controller‑‑No prejudice, therefore, was caused to tenant by not allowing him to cross‑examine landlord or examine himself as his own witness in circumstances.

Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.

Muhammad Rafique Iqbal for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11th February, 1984.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 15‑3‑1981 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 19‑6‑1979 of the learned Rent Controller in execution proceedings.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition, as per record, are that the petitioner was a tenant of the respondent in respect of a house situated in street No.2, Mohallah Chishtian Park, Bhogiwal, Lahore. The respondent filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on 26‑7‑1975 under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) on ground of default. During pendency of the ejectment proceedings, the parties compromised their dispute. In consequence, the learned (tent Controller disposed of the ejectment application in terms of the said compromise which inter alia contemplated that in the event of the petitioner's making a default in the payment of rent or not paying within the stipulated period, he was liable to be ejected through execution proceedings. The compromise order dated 27‑10‑1975 reads thus:‑----

< --[if gte vml 1]> < [endif]-->

The petitioner allegedly made a default in the payment of rent in the month of November, 1975, in that, the rent was deposited on 18‑11‑1975 instead of 15‑11‑1975. The respondent applied for execution of the compromise; order. The petitioner also filed an objection in anticipation of the execution proceedings. The objection was disallowed by order dated 19‑6‑1975 of the learned Rent Controller, This order was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who was a judgment‑debtor qua the order of ejectment, was not allowed to cross‑examine the respondent, who was decree‑holder qua that order, and the petitioner was also not allowed to examine himself as his own witness. He next contended that the execution proceedings were not competent, in that, the effect of the compromise was to create a fresh tenancy. This being so, even in case of default, a fresh application for ejectment ought to have been filed. Finally it was submitted that there was no default in the payment of rent, to that, rent for the month of November, 1975 could have been deposited upto 30‑11‑1975, in terms of section 13 of the Ordinance and in any event, the default was not intentional and it ought to have been condoned. It was further submitted that the petitioner tendered the rent due to the respondent on 10‑11‑1979 at his house, but the latter declined to accept it. The petitioner, therefore, moved an application to the learned Rent Controller on 18‑11‑1979 for deposit of rent, in dispute.

4. The contentions have no force. Even if it is assumed that the respondent failed to accept the rent, in dispute, the respondent could well have avoided the default, if he had remitted the rent either through money order or approached the Court prior to 15‑11‑1975. Here the petitioner never remitted the amount, in dispute, through money order and failed to approach the learned Rent Controller within time. The delay in obtaining permission of the learned Rent Controller for making the deposit in the treasury was entirely due to his own carelessness and not due to any unavoidable cause. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the default was due to unavoidable cause and not in wilful disregard of the compromise order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The provisions of section 13(6) of the Ordinance have no relevance in this case. The petitioner is liable to be ejected in execution of order of the learned Rent Controller as he failed to comply with terms of the compromise which do not suffer from any ambiguity. A bare reading of the compromise would show that the parties never intended to create a fresh tenancy and the petitioner was liable to be ejected in the events of failure to comply with the terms thereof. In these circumstances, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by not allowing him to cross‑examine the respondent or to examine himself as his own witness.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.

H . B . T . 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.