MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs RASHID HUSSAIN FAROOQUI AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a second appeal by the Sind High Court, which upheld the striking off of the petitioner's defence in an eviction proceeding. The core legal question concerns the legality of striking off a tenant's defence for repeated failure to deposit tentative rent as ordered by the Rent Controller, and whether a plea of mental illness or mere hardship excuses such defaults. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly rejected the petitioner's technical pleas and unsubstantiated defense of mental illness, noting that the defaults occurred prior to the alleged onset of the ailment, and that mere hardship does not warrant interference with lawful eviction orders. The ratio decidendi is that persistent failure to comply with tentative rent orders justifies striking off a tenant's defence, and pleas of hardship or unproven medical conditions cannot overturn concurrent findings of rent defaults. The Court dismissed the petition while granting a four-month grace period to vacate.
- Whether persistent failure to comply with an order for the deposit of tentative rent justifies striking off a tenant's defence?
- Does a plea of hardship constitute a valid ground for interfering with an eviction order?
- Whether an unproven claim of mental illness excuses defaults in the payment of tentative rent?
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL ACTG. C J.-The petitioner appeared in person and only pleaded hardship, therefore, we have examined the impugned judgment ourselves.
2. It would appear that in an eviction application filed against him by the respondent the petitioner had failed to comply, on several occasions, with the order for the deposit of tentative rent passed by the Rent Controller. Therefore, his defence was struck of by the Rent Controller and his appeal in the District Court was dismissed by an Additional District Judge on 8-8-1974. Therefore, he had filed a second appeal in the Sind High Court which was dismissed after a delay of six long years on 17-2- 1980. The impugned judgment lists the many defaults by the petitioner and apart from a technical plea which was rightly rejected by the High Court, the only real defence of the petitioner was that his failure to comply with the order for the deposit of tentative rent was not willful, because he was a schizophrenic, but in rejecting this plea, the learned Judge has referred to the several defaults on the part of the petitioner and pointed out that they had all occurred well before the date on which he claimed to have suffered from his mental illness.
3. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the view of the learned Judge, the more as, these is absolutely no evidence before us to show that the petitioner suffered from a mental ailment. And, even on our enquiries, all that the petitioner stated was that he had been living in the demised premises for many years and was without accommodation, but this, plea of hardship would be no ground for interfering with the impugned order: We are satisfied that the petition is without merit, we, therefore, dismiss it, but we give the petitioner four months time to vacate the demised premises provided he continues to pay the monthly rent.