MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI

ORDER

KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this code is about house No. 224/13 situated in Street No. 1, Nazimabad (Colony), Faisalabad, which was in occupation of the petitioner as a tenant under Muhammad Shafi respondent (landlord).

2. The respondent landlord on 12-9-19'77 filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) against the tenant/petitioner for his eviction from the said house. The learned Rent Controller on 15-2-1978 directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,800 for the period June, 1976 to January, 1978, at the rate of Rs. 90 per month before 4-3-1978, but as that order was not complied with, he stuck off the defence of the petitioner and ordered his eviction from the house.

3. The petitioner/tenant filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 16-7-1978. A second appeal of the tenant being S. A. O. No. 463/78 also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 27-1- 1979. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

4. It was conceded by the learned counsel that his client had not complied with the order of the learned Rent Controller and had not deposited the rent as directed, but his argument was, that as his client had in his written statement taken up the plea of adjustment of certain amount spent by him and as even otherwise according to him, on rent was due on his part, therefore in this state of affairs, the order directing the deposit of rent without first sorting out whether any rent was actually due from him after accounting for the claimed adjustments, was not justified. The contention has no merit. The order directing deposit of rent in its very nature under statute aforesaid was based on a tentative view of the case and its obedience could not be shelved on the ground that first a regular finding after recording evidence regarding actual amount due or about the amount available for adjustment to the tenant should be given because adoption of that course will tantamount to start a regular trial of the case which is not within the scope of subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance, for directing deposit of tentative amount of rent. Actually compliance of that direction is a condition precedent for requiring the Rent Controller to examine the bona fide or correctness of the various defence pleas of the tenant or to further proceed with their trial and adjudication.

5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.