Find a Lawyer

S. A. O. No. 12 of 1962, decided on 29th March 1963.

S. 13 (6)‑Order directing deposit of future rent‑Rent to be deposited "before" 5th of every month‑Word used in section is "before" and not "by"‑Court has no jurisdiction to extend date.

Bakhshi Mahmood Ali v. Aurang Zaib Khan P L D 1;960 Lah. 1210 ; Muhammad Baga Ullah Khan v. Mian Muhammad Rashid P L D 1961 Lah. 638 and Shams‑ud‑Din v. Soofi Abdul Rehman P L D 1961 B J 88 ref.

S. Anwarul Hasan for Appellant.

M. S. Aslam Pirzada for Respondents.

This is a second appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority passed on the 14th of September 1960, whereby the order passed by the Rent Controller on the 5th of July 1962, was set aside.

2. Fazal Husain appellant filed an application in the Court of Rent Controller, Ahmadpur East against Syed Muhammad Taqi praying for the ejectment of the respondent from shop No. 138 Ahmadpur East, because he had failed to pay the rent to the appellant. On the 6th of September 1961, the Rent Cont roller directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 325 at the rate of Rs. 25 p.m. from 1‑9‑1960 to 3‑9‑1961, before the 16th of October 1961. As regards the future rent it was ordered that the same shall be deposited before the 5th of every month. The arrears of rent were deposited in time. Syed Muhammad Taqi Shah applied on the 6th of November 1961, for permission to deposit Rs. 25 as the rent for October 1961. The Rent Controller passed an order that the application was barred by time it may be attached with the file. Muhammad Taqi Shah filed another application on the 8th of November 1961, before the Rent Con troller wherein he stated that he had regarded the date 5th to be included for making the deposit and as 5th of November, was Sunday consequently he came to the Court to deposit the rent on the 6th of November. That the delay in making the deposit was caused due to a bona fide mistake. It may be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act and he might be permitted to make the deposit. This application was contested by the landlord and ultimately the leaned Rent Controller by his order dated the 5th of July 1962, dismissed the application, struck off the defence and directed his ejectment forthwith. On appeal, the learned Appellate Authority held that in view of the provisions of section 29 of the Limitation Act the provisions of section 4 of the Limitation Act were applicable. It was further held that the appellant was entitled to make the deposit on the 6th of November 1961, on general principles of natural justice because the 5th of November which was the date for making the deposit happened to be a Sunday. The appeal was consequently accepted and the vase was remanded for further proceedings. This is a second appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority.

3. The short point to decide in this appeal is whether Muhammad Taqi Shah respondent was entitled to make the deposit on the 5th of November as in that case his application to make the deposit on the 6th of November will be regarded to be within time. In section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance the word used is not by the 5th of every month, but it is before the 5th of every month. In the order passed in this case the words are. This would evidently mean that the deposit was to be made before the 5th of every month. The learned counsel for the respondent relying on Bakhshi Mahmood Ali v. Aurang Zaib Khan (P L D 1960 Lah. 1210) and Muhammad Baqa Ullah Khan v. Mian Muhammad Rashid (P L D 1961 Lah. 638 at 642) contended the word "by" has been used with the date and this would mean that the 5th will be included in the period during which the deposit was to be made. There is no doubt that if the statute used the word "by" with the words "every month" it would undoubtedly include the 5th but the statute clearly says before the 5th of every month. The order passed in the case also means before the 5th of every month. The word "by" in the authorities referred to above has been used inadvertently because this was not a point under con sideration in these cases. May be that the respondent believed that he was entitled to make the deposit before 5th of the every month had run out, but since there is no jurisdiction in a Court to extend the period fixed for the deposit of the monthly rent, the default cannot be condoned. Shams‑ud‑Din v. Soofi Abdul Rehman (P L D 1961 B J 88) is the authority which lays down that the Court had no jurisdiction to extend the period for making the deposit. In this view of the matter I would accept this appeal, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and restore the order passed by the Rent Controller. In view of the special circumstances of the case, I would direct the parties to bear their own costs.

K. B. A. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.