MUHAMMAD NAEEM ABBASI vs Mst. MUHAMMAD JAN

' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---For purposes of this order, reference to pleaded facts would not be necessary. Suffice it to say that on 7-2-2007 the respondent filed an application for the ejectment of the appellant from two shops located in Rawalpindi urban area on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation. The application was contested by the appellant. On 8-9-2007 the learned Rent Controller passed an order in terms of section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. He directed the appellant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.1500 per month per shop w.e.f. August, 2006 to September, 2007 on or before the next date (27-9-2007) and directed the deposit of the future rent at the said rate before 15th of each month. On 20-10-2007 the learned Rent Controller passed an order stating that the arrears have been deposited as directed but a receipt for the month of October, 2007, has not been produced. He accordingly struck off the defence of the appellant and passed an ejectment order. A first appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed by a learned ADJ, Rawalpindi, on 20- 3-2008.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends with reference to the case of Mehboob Illahi v. Saqib Mehmood Riaz and others (1990 SCM R 1688) that the rent for October, 2007, could have been deposited before 15-11-2007 and as such the impugned orders are against law. Learned counsel for the respondent has tried to support the impugned order.

3. I have gone through the records of the learned Rent Controller, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already reproduced above the material contents of the order, dated 8-9-2007 passed under section 13(6) of the said Ordinance of 1959. The arrears have admittedly been paid as directed. It will be seen that the learned Rent Controller was completely oblivious of the fact that he was passing the order on 20-10-2007 and condemning the appellant for failure to deposit the rent for October, 2007 which has yet to become due for payment and was to be deposited before 15th day of the next month i.e. 15-11-2007. The learned A.D.J. Has completely misdirected himself and it appears that he has not even cared to read section 13(6) of the said Ordinance before passing the impugned order. He has observed as follows in para-9 of his impugned order:--- "Every tenant is required to pay rent due in advance until and unless it is specifically agreed between the parties that the rent shall be paid at the end of the month. The learned trial Court had directed in categorical terms that the rent should be paid before 15th of each month, thus, there was no ambiguity in the impugned order to allow the appellant to agitate that the rent was not yet due."

' The above observation shows that the learned A.D.J. Has made no attempt to acquaint himself with the provisions of section 13 of the Punjab Urban rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Section 13(2)

(i) allows a grace of 15 days to a tenant to pay or tender rent in cases where a time is fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord; and a grace of 60 days where there is no such agreement.

However, the matter of deposit of rent in Court during the pendency of an ejectment petition is governed by section 13(6) of the said Ordinance and the Rent Controller is bound to direct a tenant to deposit the rent regularly till the final decision of the case before the 15th day of each month the monthly rent due from him. The rent for a month, of course, becomes due upon the expiry of the said month and upon thus becoming due it is payable before the 15th day from the said date. This clearly means that rent for October, 2007, was to be deposited before the 15th day of November, 2007. Even if the learned A.D.J. Had concluded that the Rent Controller intended to direct the appellant to deposit the rent of the same month before the 15th of the same month, the order ought to have been struck down being against the express provision of law. The rent for the said month has already been deposited on 8-11-2007 as per copy of the challan receipt. Thus, no default whatsoever has been committed by the appellant within the meaning of section 13(6) of the said Ordinance. The S.A.O. Is allowed. Both the impugned orders passed by the learned A.D.J.

And the learned Rent Controller are set aside. The result would be that the ejectment petition filed by the respondent against the appellant shall be deemed to be pending.

' The parties shall appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Rawalpindi, on 29- 7-2008. Issues have already been framed. The records will be immediately remitted back to the learned Rent Controller who shall proceed to decide the case on merits on or before 31-10-2008. No orders as to costs.