ZAFAR QURESHI AND Others vs Khawaja MAQSOODUL HASSAN ETC.S
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a rent dispute where the petitioners, tenants of the respondent, challenged the dismissal of their Second Appeal from Order (S.A.O.) by the High Court. The core legal question concerned whether the Rent Controller correctly struck off the petitioners' defence due to their failure to comply with an order under Section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance regarding the timely deposit of monthly rent. The Rent Controller had found that the petitioners defaulted on rent payments for two specific months, April 1974 and October 1974. The Supreme Court examined the petitioners' contention that they were denied sufficient opportunity to prove compliance and that the delay for one month was negligible. The Court upheld the Rent Controller's findings, concluding that a default had indeed occurred. Regarding the delay, the Court held that the Rent Controller exercised valid discretion in striking off the defence, noting that the delay was not merely one day when considering the grace period provided. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Does a Rent Controller have the discretion to strike off a tenant's defence upon finding a default in the deposit of monthly rent?
- Can a tenant claim that a delay in rent deposit was negligible when the Rent Controller has already determined a default occurred?
- Is a finding of fact by a Rent Controller regarding rent default subject to interference when the tenant fails to demonstrate compliance with deposit orders?
- Section 13(6), Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 24- 2-1981, dismissing the petitioners S. A. O. In a rent case.
2. The facts leading to this petition are that the petitioners were tenants of Kh. Maqsoodul Hassan, respondent No. 1. The latter filed an ejectment application against the petitioner in respect of flat on the Mall Road, Lahore, on 13-6- 1973 on the ground of default in payment of rent. On 22-4-1974, the Rent Controller passed an order under section 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.
19,375 as arrears of rent and also to deposit the monthly rent by the 15th of the succeeding months.
The petitioners filed an appeal against the abovenoted order in the Court of the District Judge, who suspended the order regarding deposit of arrears but did not stay the same with regard to payment of the future monthly rent. The District Judge, vide order dated 18-10-1975, dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent before 21-11-1975. These were deposited by the petitioners. In Septem--ber, 1976, the landlord (respondent No. 1) raised an objection that the petitioners had defaulted in depositing the rent for the months of April, 1974 and October, 1974. The Rent Controller found that the petitioner had defaulted in the payment of the rent for the said months and struck off the petitioner's defence. The petitioners filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed. They then filed an S. A. O., in the High Court, which too, was dismissed as being without any merit.
Hence this petition.
3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the learned Rent Controller had not given the petitioners sufficient opportunity to show that no default had occurred.
4. We have ourselves hoard the petitioners' learned counsel on the question and given him full opportunity to show that the petitioners had not defaulted in the payment of rent for those two months, but after hearing him, are inclined to agree with the learned. Rent Controller that there had been a default on the petitioners' part. The said contention has, there--fore, no force.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that there was only one day's delay in deposit of rent for the month of October, 1974, and that delay occurred as the rent had been deposited on the 16th November, instead of 15th November. This contention overlooks the fact that in reality, the petitioner was given one full month or at least 15 days to deposit the rent of the previous months. As such if the petitioners deposited the rent one day after the time fixed, the delay in fact is much more than one day. In any case it was a matter of discretion with the learned Rent Controller, and we do not consider it a fit case to interfere with his exercise thereof. In view of the above discussion we feel that there is no merit in this petition. Dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- MALIK NAZAR HUSSAIN vs COMMANDER (R) ZAFAR IQBAL, and 6 others 2006 PLJ Lahore 1404
- NAMER GUL Versus JALAMBAR 2005 PLD 72
- Syed KHURSHEED HYDER ZAIDI vs LATIF AHMED 2001 MLD 1217
- SALAHUDDIN And 4 Others vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOHAT And 2 1989 CLC 1658
- AZIZULLAH Versus MAZHAR HUSSAIN 1989 MLD 4361
- SHAUKAT ALI Versus SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN 1985 CLC 34