PEER BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN and 2 others

' The respondent No,3 brought an application for the ejectment of the petitioner from a house located in Multan urban area. He was proceeded against ex parte and an ejectment order was passed on 6-1-2004. On 22-6-2004 he filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte order.

This was dismissed on 10-11-2004. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Multan, on 1-2-2005 on the ground that he has failed to comply with a rent depositing order passed by the learned Appellate Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the fact that no date was fixed, his client filed an application seeking permission to deposit rent but no order was passed on the same by the learned Additional District Judge. Learned counsel for the respondent has tried to support the impugned order.

3. I have examined the available records. I find that the appeal came up before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, on 22-11-2004. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties present (the attorney of the respondent had put in appearance) admitted the appeal to regular hearing and summoned the records for 2-12-2004. Thereafter, he proceeded to pass the following order:-- "Meanwhile the appellant is, directed to deposit the monthly rent of Rs,400 from 23-6-2004 till onward. The appellant is further directed to deposit rent regularly before 5th of every month till the decision of the appeal."

4. On 21-12-2004 the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to deposit the rent in Court w,e,f, 23-6-2004 to 23-12-2004. No order was passed on this application. It was taken up along with the appeal on 1-2-2005 when the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of the disobedience of his order and rejected the application as well as the appeal.

5. Lately, I have observed in several cases coming in this Court that the learned Rent Controllers as also the learned Appellate Courts proceed to pass order for deposit of rent purporting to act under section 13(6) or section 15(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, without even reading the said provisions of law. In most of the cases no date is fixed for deposit of arrears and similarly the correct date prescribed by law is not given for deposit of future monthly rent. This leads to uncalled for further litigation and delay in the ejectment proceedings.

6. Now section 15(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, vests the Appellate Authority who admits an appeal for hearing with the same powers as are vested in the Rent Controller to direct the tenant to deposit the rent and in case of default in compliance to dismiss the appeal if it has been filed by the tenant or to strike off his defence if, he is a respondent.

7. Now under section 13(6) of the said Ordinance, the learned Rent Controller is required by law in mandatory terms to proceed as follows:--

(A) Where there is no dispute as to arrears or rate of rent,

(i) to direct the tenant to deposit all rent due from him before a date to be fixed for this purpose and also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case, before the 15th day of each month, the monthly rent due from him.

(B) In case there is a dispute about the amount of rent due or the rate of rent,

(i) to determine such amount approximately and direct that the same be deposited by the tenant before a date to be fixed by the Court and to deposit the future monthly rent regularly before the 15th day of each month, the monthly rent due from him.

8. Needless to state that the learned Appellate Court having been vested with the same powers as also to act in the same manner.

9. Now, in the present case, the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, proceeded to direct the tenant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs,400 from 23-6-2004 till onward and further to deposit the rent regularly before 5th of every month till the decision of the appeal. This order does not at all comply with the said legal requirements. The learned Additional District Judge had first to work out the arrears or the amount of rent due and then to direct the tenant to deposit the rent due before a date to be fixed by him. He was then to direct the tenant to keep on depositing the rent before the 15th day of each month, the monthly rent due from him.

10. It is only a default in compliance of an order passed in the said manner in accordance with law that the penalty imposed by the learned Additional District Judge could have been imposed. He has accordingly acted without lawful authority by punishing the tenant for no fault of his.

11. This writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1-2-2005 of the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, is set aside. The result would be that the appeal filed by the petitioner- tenant shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, before whom the parties shall appear on 31-5-2005. The records will be requisitioned and the appeal would be heard and decided on its merits.

12. The petitioner-tenant shall make a deposit of rent due w,e,f, 1-6-2004 till 31-3-2005 at the rate of Rs,400 per month (total dues bearing Rs,3,600) in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Multan(Mr. Falak Sher Farooka) on or before 31-5-2005 and further to keep on depositing the monthly rent due from him w,e,f, 1-4-2005 at the rate of Rs,400 per month before the 15th day of each following month. In case this order is not complied with, the respondent shall be at liberty to move the learned Additional District Judge for passing appropriate orders. No orders as to costs.

13. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned District Judge, Multan as also to the learned District Judges within the jurisdiction of this Bench, for circulation amongst all learned Rent Controllers and the Appellate Authorities to observe the said legal position while passing orders for deposit of rent under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.