MUHAMMAD NASEER vs SAJID HUSSAIN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an ejectment order against a tenant. The core legal question was whether a tenant's failure to comply strictly with a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent arrears 'before' a specified date constitutes a default justifying ejectment, even if the deposit was made on that date. The petitioner argued, relying on precedent, that depositing on the date itself was a bona fide mistake in interpretation. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that when an order explicitly mandates a deposit 'before' a specific date, it leaves no room for ambiguity or alternative interpretation. The Court emphasized that allowing tenants to plead a 'bona fide mistake' in such circumstances would undermine the efficacy of rent restriction laws and encourage default. Finding that the tenant had failed to comply with the clear terms of the Rent Controller's order, the Court affirmed the ejectment, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal.
- Does a tenant's failure to deposit rent before a specified date, as ordered by a Rent Controller, constitute a default justifying ejectment?
- Can a tenant claim a 'bona fide mistake' in interpreting a clear judicial order to deposit rent before a specific date?
- Section 17(8), Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Naseer, the ejected tenant, seeks leave to appeal from the judgment dated 12-12-2008 of a learned Judge in the Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed.
2. During ejectment petition filed by the respondent, the Additional Cantonments Rent Controller Rawalpindi, on 23-10-2007, passed an order under section 17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs,2,25,000 as specified arrears of rent before 30-10- 2007. The order was not complied with accordingly and hence the tenant stood ejected.
3. The tenant deposited Rs,65,500 on 29-10-2007. Before that, he had already deposited Rs,59,500 on different dates. Keeping in view the exact date of deposits, the tenant had only deposited Rs,1,24,500 before the specified date 30-10- 2007. A sum of Rs,100,000 was deposited on 30-10-2007 and a sum of Rs,500 is still outstanding.
This was a clear violation of order dated 23-10-2007 and hence the petitioner was rightly ejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a single Bench judgment of Karachi High Court Sarfraz Khan v. Muhammad Abdul Rauf PLD 1969 Kar. 176 where it was held that the deposit of rent by a tenant on and not before the fixed date was a bona fide mistake in interpreting order of Controller and hence could not be considered a default.
5. We have gone through the above ruling and do not subscribe to the given interpretation because it would be extremely convenient for every defaulting tenant to take the plea that he had fallen into a bona fide mistake in interpreting the order of the Controller.
6. The correct and genuine interpretation would be that if an order specifically lays down that the rent is to be deposited before the specific date, no party has a right to interpret that the rent is to be deposited by such date. The petitioner has not filed the order dated 23-10 2007, yet from the ejectment order dated 12-8-2008 (PP-21) and the impugned order of the learned High Court, it manifestly clear that petitioner was directed to deposit the rent before 30-10-2007. There being no ambiguity, it could not be interpreted otherwise. The petitioner has rightly been ejected. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- Syed USMAN KHALID Versus ATTA MOHAMMAD 2017 CLC 1242
- Syed Usman Khalid vs Atta Mohammad and others 2017 IHC 55