WEST PAKISTAN CO OPERATIVE CONSUMERS SOCIETY LTD LAHORE THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs NADEEM NAWAZISH MALIK AND 3 Other
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the second appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts directing the petitioner's eviction from a commercial shop. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner committed a default in depositing the monthly rent as ordered under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, and whether sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the explanation provided for the delayed deposit was vague, lacking in particulars, and rightly rejected by the courts below as an afterthought. Consequently, the concurrent finding of default warranted the striking off of the defense and the passing of an eviction order. The key principle laid down is that failure to comply strictly with a tentative rent-fixation order without a valid, substantiated explanation constitutes a default justifying eviction, and findings of fact concurrently reached by lower courts on such matters will not be interfered with.
- Whether failure to deposit rent by the stipulated date under a tentative rent order justifies striking off the tenant's defense?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a rent default be interfered with by the Supreme Court in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Whether a vague application for condonation of delay in depositing rent warrants acceptance without necessary particulars?
- Section 13(6), Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order dated 15th October 1978, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore was dismissed.
2. The respondents herein filed an application in the Court of the Rent Controller, Lahore, against the petitioner praying for his ejectment from a shop situate in the Commercial Zone, Gulberg, Lahore, as he had failed to pay the rent. During the pendency of the ejectment proceedings the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 22-3-1977 passed under section 13(6) .Of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, directed the petitioner to tender future rent of the property before the 15th of every month. The petitioner failed to deposit the rent for the month of April 1977, before or on the 14th of May as directed by the Rent Controller. This rent was actually deposited by the petitioner on the 16th of May 1977 The petitioner's appeals in the Court of Additional. District Judge and the High Court failed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has read before us the applica--petition submitted for condonation of delay in depositing the rent within time. The application is entirely vague and lacks in all particulars, and the attempt made to make out a case that the rent could not be deposited because of the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner appears to be a afterthought. In any case, the explanation has not been accepted by the Courts below, which have concurrently held that the petitioner had com--mitted default in the payment of rent, therefore, there was no alternative for the Rent Controller but to strike off his defence and pass the order of his eviction from the disputed shop. In this view of the matter, n ground for interference exists. This petition, accordingly, must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is allowed two months time to vacate the shop in dispute, subject to his continuing paying rent before the 15th of each future month.