MAQBOOL AHMAD vs BEGUM MUSARRAT SHAUKAT HAYAT KHAN
This matter arises from an ejectment petition filed by the respondent against the petitioner for a disputed quarter transferred to the respondent. The respondent sought ejectment and an order was passed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance directing the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent from 1-11-1965 to 1-11-1968. The petitioner failed to comply, leading to his defence being struck off and an order for possession. The core legal question was whether voluntary payment of time-barred rent for a prior period could be subsequently adjusted against the rent ordered to be deposited for a later period under section 13(6). The Supreme Court held that where a sum of money has been voluntarily appropriated towards a particular debt, it cannot thereafter be adjusted against another debt, and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that voluntary appropriation of a payment towards a specific debt is final and cannot be re-adjusted for subsequent liabilities.
- Whether rent voluntarily paid for a period prior to the limitation period can be subsequently adjusted towards a fresh rent deposit order under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Can a sum of money voluntarily appropriated towards a particular debt be thereafter adjusted against some other debt?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons Act
- Section 13(6), Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The respondent was transferred on 6-12-1961 inter alia a quarter bearing No, 11-A, Lawrance Road, Lahore. She served a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act on 18-3-1964 upon the petitioner intimating him of the factum of transfer and calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent as from the date of transfer and future monthly rent. The petitioner is stated to have deposited the rent from 6-12-1961 to 6-6-1964 in the Government Treasury with the permission of the Rent Controller.
2. ' On 18-2-1967, the respondent filed an ejectment application seeking ejectment of the petitioner, and in pursuance thereof an order passed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance on 18-12-1968 directing him to deposit the arrears of rent (past three years; from 1-11-1965 to 1-11-1968 at the rate of Rs, 6 per mensem). This order does not appear to have been complied with according to its terms. Hence the defence of the petitioner was struck off and respondent ordered to be put in possession.
3. The case of the petitioner is that as the respondent could not demand the rent beyond three years from the date of his application (9-2-1967), hen the rent paid for the period before this date could be adjusted towards the rent payable in pursurance of the order for deposit of rent made under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance on 18-12-1968, namely, for the period from 1-11-1965 to 1-11-1968. As pointed out by the learned Rent Controller that although the respondent could not demand the rent beyond 9-2-1964 (as the application was made on 9-2-1967), the petitioner was no precluded from paying time barred rent to the respondent. Having himself stated in the challan that the rent was for the period from 6-12-1961 to 6-6-1964 it did not lie in his mouth to say that this be treated as rent for the disputed period. We may add that where a sum of money has been voluntarily appropriated towards a particular debt, the same cannot thereafter be adjusted against some other debt.
4. ' There is no force in this petition which is dismissed. However, the petitioner is allowed four months provided he continues to pay the monthly rent according to law.