MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, GUJRANWALA vs BARKAT BIBI AND 5 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that upheld the striking off of a tenant's defence in a rent restriction case. The core legal question was whether the tenant's failure to deposit rent in compliance with a court order under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance constituted 'wilful' default, and whether the tenant was denied adequate opportunity to explain the non-compliance before the defence was struck off. The Supreme Court held that the tenant's reliance on 'audit objections' as an excuse for non-payment was insufficient, as the objections were easily rectifiable and the failure to comply resulted from the tenant's own negligence. The Court affirmed that the default was wilful and that the tenant had been afforded sufficient opportunity to explain the non-compliance, rendering a separate detailed inquiry unnecessary. The key principle laid down is that administrative or audit objections do not absolve a tenant from the mandatory obligation to comply with court-ordered rent deposits, and failure to do so with due diligence constitutes wilful default warranting the striking off of the defence.
- Does the existence of audit objections constitute a valid excuse for failing to comply with a court order to deposit rent under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Is a separate detailed inquiry required before a Rent Controller can strike off a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a rent deposit order?
- Does the failure to deposit rent in compliance with a court order due to negligence constitute wilful default?
- Section 13(6), Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J-This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 8-4-1978 of the Lahore High Court, passed on the tenant's second appeal under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, thereby maintaining the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge.
2. The petitioner committed default in the payment of rent for the months of July and August, whereupon, after holding necessary inquiry, his defence was ordered to be struck off. The plea taken up by the petitioner to avoid the penalty envisaged by section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for non-compliance of the order of the Court dated 8-7-1976 was that certain audit objections had prevented the petitioner from making the deposit in time and, as such, the default was not wilful. In passing the order striking off the defence of the petitioner the Rent Controller also found that the petitioner committed default for the months of August to February because he had paid the rent for this period in' lump sum on 18th March 1977.
3. Before the High Court, it was argued that the default could not be said to be wilful and that in any case the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity before his defence was ordered to be struck off. The learned Judge in the High Court held that in so far as the petitioner was allowed to submit a reply to the respondent's application for striking of the defence, it could not be said that he had not been afforded any opportunity as a detailed inquiry was not called for, as held by this Court in Ghulam Muhammad Lundkhor v. Safdar A.I (PLD 1967 SC 530). It was also held that merely because there were audit objections the petitioner was not absolved of the obligation of complying with the order of the Court under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The conclusion arrived at was that it could not be said that the default was not wilful.
4. The petitioner has reiterated the same points that were argued before the High Court. From the reply to the application of the respondents praying for the striking off the defence of the petitioner, which has been placed before us. It appears that the audit objection was only to the effect that the petitioner should produce a copy of the order of the Court in regard to the payment of rent, i.e., the order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance--- This was not such a formidable objection which could not be rectified without loss of time and, therefore, non-compliance of the order of the Rent Controller in regard to payment of rent on account of which the petitioner's defence was struck off was owing to their own negligence which could have been avoided if the petitioner had acted with due diligence. In this view of the matter the default committed by the petitioner was wilful and invited the penalty of striking off his defence under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. We are also in agreement with the learned Judge of the High Court that the petitioner had been afforded an opportunity to explain the non-compliance of the order for the deposit of rent in Court and no separate trial of the plea raised in excuse of the said non- compliance was necessary and that his defence was rightly, struck off.
5. The result is that this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 7 cases
- Shaikh MUHAMMAD SAEED vs Mst. SALEHA KHATOON 1983 CLC 2039
- MESSRS PAN ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP Co. LTD. vs S. M. NAQI AND ANOTHER. 1982 CLC 1944
- MESSRS PAN-ISLAMIC STEAMSHIP CO, LTD. vs S. M. NAQI AND ANOTHER 1982 CLC 1944
- ANWAR KHAN KHANZADA AND 3 Other vs GULZAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER 1982 PLD Lahore 72
- RABBANI AND ANOTHER vs Syed ABDUL WALI AND OTHERS 1982 CLC 2005
- RABBANI AND ANOTHER vs Syed ABDUL WALI AND OTHER 1982 CLC 2005
- Mst. BILQUEES JEHAN BEGUM AND 12 OTHERS vs Mst. KHATOON FATIMA 1982 CLC 451