ABDUL RASHID, ETC. vs Mst. MAJIDAN
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by tenants against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had restored the Rent Controller's order striking off the tenants' defence and directing their eviction for non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether tenants are justified in failing to comply with a tentative rent fixation order under rent restriction laws, and whether an interim order fixing tentative rent is appealable. The Supreme Court held that tentative rent orders are interim in nature, cannot be made the subject matter of independent first or second appeals, and do not justify non-compliance by tenants during the proceedings. The court laid down the principle that failure to comply with a lawful tentative rent order warrants the striking off of the tenant's defence and subsequent eviction, and that interim orders of tentative rent fixation are not independently appealable.
- Whether an interim order fixing tentative rent is subject to independent first or second appeal?
- Does failure to comply with a tentative rent order justify striking off the defence of the tenants?
- Can tenants refuse to deposit tentative rent on the ground that the rate fixed is excessive?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--Mst. Majidan (hereinafter called the landlady) on 9-5-1967 title an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 (hereinafer called the Ordinance) against (i) Abdul Rashid and (ii) Mst. Bilqees (hereinafter called the tenants for their eviction from a portion of House No. 1-S 5, Block No. 19, Sargodha, described fully in the ejectment application. The learned Rent Controller on 12-3-1971 passed an order under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance, directing the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent from 9-5-1564 to 14-4-1971 before 15-4-1971 and future rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per month before the 15th of each successive month. As this order was not complied with the defence of the tenants was struck off on 21-6-1971 and the landlady was directed to be put in possession of the aforesaid house.
2. The tenants filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 28-9-1972 whereby he remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller to refix the rate of the tentative rent which was to be deposited by the tenants.
3. The landlady filed an appeal being S. A. O. No. 351 of 1972 which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by his order dated 29-4-1974 whereby he reversed the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge and restored the order of the learned Rest Controller striking off the defence of the petitioners tenant and directing their eviction from the above-mentioned houses because according to the High Court the rent aforesaid was only of a tentative character and needed no modification at that stage.
4. At this place it may be mentioned that the tenants had filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge against the basic order dated 12-3-1971 whereby the learned Rent Controller had directed them to deposit the rent as mentioned earlier. This appeal failed and was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 8-5-1971. The tenants then filed an S. A. O. No. 174 of 1971 which was taken up along with the earlier mentioned S. A. O. No. 351 of 1972 and both these' appeals were dis--posed of by a common order dated 29-4-1974 whereby as mentioned earlier the appeal of the landlady was accepted whereas the appeal of the tenants namely S. A. O.
No. 174 of 1971 was dismissed.
5. The tenants have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid common judgment and order passed in the aforesaid two S. A. Os.
6. Learned counsel tried to argue that the rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller at the rate of Rs.
20 was very excessive and merited reduction to Rs.
10. When confronted with the legal proposition that it was only a tentative rate and amount of rent which later on was to be thrashed out during the course of trial and that merely for his reason the tenants were not justified in not depositing the rent the learned counsel had no answer. Even otherwise it may be mentioned that the order dated 12-3-1971 whereby merely a tentative rent was fixed and directed to be deposited was simply of an interim character and could not have been made the subject matter of any independent first or second appeal by the tenants. In the circumstances the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal of the tenants viz. S. A. O. No. 174 of 1971 from this point of view was perfectly justified and cannot be taken exception to. Coming to the factual aspect of the case the learned counsel could not give any justification on the part of his clients for non-compliance of the order dated 12-31971, with the result that the order passed by the High Court in upholding their eviction on that ground seems to be perfectly in order and in accordance with the law on the subject.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that looked at from whatever angle this petition has no merit and is dismissed.