MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus THE PROVINCE OF SINDH

1. This appeal under section 24 of Rent Act, 963 by the tenant is against decision of Additional Rent Controller, Lahore Cantonment dated 12‑1‑1991 by which defence was struck off for failing to deposit rent in accordance with the direction made under section 17(8) of the above Act and consequently, tenant was ordered to vacate the house in his possession within three months.

2. On 4‑12‑1989, respondent brought a petition for eviction of the appellant from a house situate in Lahore Cantonment on the grounds of default in payment of rent; bona fide requirement of house for self‑occupation of respondent's son and use of the property for a purpose different than for which it was let out. It was stated that rent per month of the house was Rs.650 and the same had not been paid since January 1986. Appellant filed reply and submitted that rent per month of the house was Rs.250 and it was paid till May 1986, and thereafter, was being deposited under orders of the Rent Controller passed under section 13(6) of the Rent Ordinance.

3. On 28‑2‑1990, Rent Controller tentatively assessed monthly rent at Rs.30f) and directed appellant to deposit rent‑arrears with effect from 1‑1‑1987 to 28‑2‑1990, totally Rs.11,400 before 18‑3‑1990 and the future rent at the same rate before 5th of each succeeding month. After making the above direction, Rent Controller settled issues on merits. Later, appellant applied for review of rent direction. Respondent opposed the application and submitted that no power of review rested in the Rent Controller. Meanwhile, appellant had applied to learned District Judge for transfer of ejectment case from the file of Additional Rent Controller, Cantonment. In absence of an express provision, transfer petition could not succeed. On 12‑1‑1991, Rent Controller found that since direction for deposit of rent had not been complied with, defence of the appellant was liable to be struck off under section 17(8) of Rent Act, 1963: Consequently, while striking off the appellant's defence, Rent Controller directed his ejectment. Aggrieved of the order, appellant has come up in appeal to this Court. It was admitted to hearing on 23‑2‑1991 and operation of the impugned eviction order suspended meanwhile.

4. At the hearing, it is contended by learned counsel for appellant that the Additional Rent Controller without affording an opportunity of defence passed the impugned order directing appellant's ejectment. It was also submitted that the entire rent covered by direction under section 17(8) of the Rent Act had been deposited in time. In that context, learned counsel referred to rent receipts and Treasury challans. It was argued that rent at the rate of Rs.250 per month was deposited in the Treasury under a direction of Rent Controller Urban Area, Lahore made in course of an earlier ejectment petition filed by respondent and that amount of rent was adjustable towards the direction for deposit of rent made under section 17(8) of Rent Act in the present application filed for ejectment of the appellant. It was further argued that tentative assessment of rent at Rs.300 per month when, Rent Controller Urban Area, Lahore had assessed it at Rs.250 per month in the previous application for ejectment, was incorrect. In any case, it was argued that without inquiry and allowing a chance of reasonable defence to explain default, Rent Controller could not have ordered forthwith, ejectment.

5. Learned counsel for respondent supported the impugned order. It was argued that the appellant had not placed rent‑receipts/Treasury challans before the Rent Controller to afford him a chance to express on them. It was further argued that deposit of rent, if any, under a direction of Rent Controller Urban Area, Lahore in course of hearing of an ejectment petition which he had no jurisdiction to entertain was of no material avail to the appellant. In that context, learned counsel referred to Explanation to subsection (2) of section 17 of Rent Act, 1(X)3.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel at length and examination of the original records as also the rent receipts/Treasury challans showing deposit of rent on different dates and of different amounts, I am of the considered opinion that the order striking off defence and consequent forthwith ejectment was unsustainable. Impugned order is neither self‑speaking nor discloses sufficient application of mind nor a reasonable opportunity of defence to the appellant to explain the attributed rent‑default. Though the proceedings under the Rent taws were designed to be summary, yet those ought not to be made more summary by excluding inquiry into the disputed questions of fact and non‑application of mind by Tribunal to them for their proper decision. After all, these proceedings also affect rights of the parties. When I look at the matter from this angle, I get a strong expression that the dispute about violation of rent direction and its consequential legal effects has been tried to be resolved in a perfunctory manner with unsatisfactory results. In this view of the matter, impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. Therefore, it is set aside and the case is remanded for deciding it afresh after allowing a reasonable opportunity of defence to the tenant‑appellant for producing rent receipts/Treasury challans and other related material for explaining the rent default ascribed to him. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court.

7. Records be returned.

8. Parties shall appear before Rent Controller, Cantonment on 30‑10‑1991.

9. H.B.T./M‑207/L Order accordingly.