PIR INAYAT SHAH vs AGHA MUHAMMAD
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the concurrent orders of the lower courts and the Rent Controller striking off his defence for failing to deposit rent in a timely manner. The core legal question concerns whether illness constitutes a valid ground to excuse a default in depositing rent as ordered by the Rent Controller when the tenant is capable of arranging alternative means for compliance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner's excuse of illness is untenable since personal appearance to deposit rent is not required by law, and the duty could have been fulfilled through family members or a servant. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that personal illness does not excuse statutory or directed deposit defaults where alternative modes of compliance are readily available.
- Whether illness constitutes a valid ground for failing to deposit rent as directed by the Rent Controller?
- Does the law require a tenant to personally deposit rent in court?
- Whether the Rent Controller is justified in striking off the defence of a tenant who defaults in depositing rent without seeking condonation of delay?
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in House No. 8-20/288-B, Kansi Road, Quetta. The landlord applied for his ejectment on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of rent. The tenant contested the petition and the Rent Controller passed an order directing him to deposit the arrears of rent and to go on depositing the future rent by the 15th of each succeeding month.
2. The petitioner failed to deposit the rent for the months of July and October, 1978. He, however, neither brought these defaults to the notice of the Court nor did he ask for condonation of the delay.
3. When in March, 1979 the landlord applied for the striking off of the defence of the petitioner on this ground he explained the default on the ground of illness which was duly brushed aside by the Rent Controller and the appellate Courts. Hence this petition for Special leave to appeal.
4. It has been urged before us that the failure to deposit rent was on account of illness, a circumstance which was not under the petitioner's control. This is an untenable excuse since the petitioner was not required by law to go to deposit the rent personally and any member of the family of a servant could have gone and performed this duty. The petitioner admitted before us that he has a servant.
5. There is no force in this petition, which is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Syed ASADULLAH SHAH vs RAM CHAND 1984 CLC 1910
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs Master Muhammad Sharif And Another 1982 PLD Quetta 129