Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 5118 of 1984, decided on 24th November, 1984.

---S. 13(6)--Dispute over rate of rent--Rent Controller passing order under S. 13(6) and directing tenant to deposit rent at rate of Rs. 40 p.m.--Rent Controller while deciding ejectment petition ordered tenant to deposit Rs.100 p.m.--Appellate Authority on admission of appeal against order of Rent Controller suspended said order without indicating rate of rent--Effect--Appellate Authority however, directed tenant to deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent without indicating any rate therefor--Tenant continued to deposit rent at Rs. 40 p.m.--Tenant, held, fully complied with directions of Appellate Authority in circumstances. S.M. Masud for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1984.

This constitutional petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated 22-9-1984 dismissing the petitioners appeal summarily on the ground that they did not comply with the order dated 7-5-1983 insofar as they had not deposited the arrears of rent. 2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are that the petitioners were directed to be ejected from the premises in dispute by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 4-4-1983. Petitioners preferred an appeal, which, as stated above, was summarily dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the rate of rent was in dispute in the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, who while passing the order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, directed the petitioners to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.40 per month. However, while finally deciding the ejectment petition, learned Rent Controller held that the rate of rent of the disputed property was Rs. 100 per month. Petitioners in their appeal before the District Judge, inter alia, challenged the determination of rate of rent by the learned Rent Controller. Learned Additional District Judge admitted the appeal to regular hearing by order dated 7-5-1983 and suspended the operation of the impugned order subject to the deposit of arrears of rent and future monthly rent. The admitting order does not indicate the rate of rent at which the arrears and future monthly rent were to be deposited. Learned counsel further submits that the operation of the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller having been suspended, petitioners were not required to deposit the arrears/future monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 100. However, during the pendency of the appeal they have been depositing the rent at the rate of Rs. 40. Submission of the learned counsel is that the petitioners complied with the direction of the learned Additional District Judge insofar as they have been depositing the rent at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. Contention of the learned counsel appears to have force. Admit. Notice. 4. Kh. Muhammad Saeed-uz-Zafar, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. He submits that he does not oppose the writ petition, which may be accepted and the case be remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for disposal of the petitioners, appeal on merits. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is accepted, impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 22-9-1984 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned appellate authority for disposal of the appeal on merits within three months. No order as to costs. H.B.T . Petition accepted.