MESSRS CRESCENT PUBLICITY SERVICE vs S. M. YOUNUS AND Others
This matter concerns an eviction application filed against the petitioner, which was initially ordered by the Rent Controller, Karachi, but subsequently set aside by the District Court. Upon the respondents' second appeal to the Sind High Court, the petitioner was ordered to deposit monthly rent. Following the petitioner's default in complying with this deposit order, the High Court struck off the petitioner's defence. The petitioner sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that a single default did not warrant striking off the defence and that the High Court lacked the authority to strike off a defence during a second appeal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had clearly fallen within the scope of Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in striking off the defence. The Court affirmed that the High Court possesses the power to strike off a tenant's defence for breach of a rent deposit order, even in second appeal proceedings, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Does the High Court have the power to strike off a tenant's defence for failure to comply with a rent deposit order during a second appeal?
- Does a single default in the payment of rent justify the striking off of a tenant's defence under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Section 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. ' DORAB PATEL, J.-The respondents had filed an eviction application against the petitioner and its eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller, Karachi, therefore, the petitioner had filed an appeal in the District Court, Karachi, which was allowed. The respondents had, therefore, filed a second appeal, under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, (hereinafter called the said Ordinance), in the Sind High Court and during the pendency of the appeal, a learned Judge of the High Court had passed the usual order directing the petitioner to deposit the monthly rent "before the 15th day of each Calendar month in terms of the order passed by the Controller." As the petitioner had committed default in the payment of monthly rent, the respondents filed an application for striking off their defence. And as this application was allowed by a learned Judge of the Sind High Court on 17-2-1979, the petitioner filed a petition for leave which was dismissed for default on 10-2-1980. It has filed a restoration application, which we have allowed and we now turn to the merits of the petition.
2. ' Learned counsel admitted that the petitioner had committed default in the payment of rent, but stated that it was a single default. Therefore, the defence should not have been struck: off. Although the default was a single default, the petitioner had brought itself 'within the mischief of subsection
(6) of , section 13 of the said Ordinance and the learned Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting its explanation for its admitted failure to comply with the High Court's order for the deposit of rent, and no ground whatever has been made out for interference with the discretion exercised by the High Court against the petitioner.
3. ' Learned counsel's only other submission was that the learned Judge had erred in striking off the defence of the petitioner, because the High Court in its second appeal did not have the power to strike off a tenant's defence even if the tenant was in breach of the order for deposit of rent. This submission was rejected in the High Court and in rejecting it, the learned Judge relied on judgments of the High Court at Karachi Roshan Din v. S. M. Badruddin (1) and in Abdul Qayum Ansari v. Salahuddin Qureshi (2). We agree with the view taken in these judgments, therefore, we see no merit in learn counsel's submission.
4. ' No case has been made out for the grant of special leave and the petition is dismissed, but we give the petitioner four months' time to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondents provided it continues to deposit the monthly rent.
(1) PLD 1969 Kar. 546 (2) PLD 1974 Kar. 10
Cited by 9 cases
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD JAVED and 6 others vs JAVED FAZIL 2011 MLD 1810
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs Mrs. Syed HABIBA RIZVI 1994 PLD Karachi 227
- M. IMAMUDDIN vs Mst. SURRIYA KHANUM through Legal Heirs PLD'1991 Supreme Court 317
- M. IMAM UD DIN Versus SURIYA KHANUM 1991 PLD 317
- Mst. SUGHRA BEGUM And 10 Other vs AFTAB AHMED 1987 PLD Karachi 524
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs ABDUL HABIB 1987 CLC 682
- NIAZ ALI vs FAIZ MUHAMMAD 1982 CLC 850
- MAHBOOB ALAM WARSI vs Syed MUHAMMAD SHAMIM 1982 CLC 1868
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and anothers vs KHOLA DIN 1995 CLC 564