ABDUL SAMAD Versus GHULAM RASOOL
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that reversed a Rent Controller's order. The Rent Controller had initially dismissed the respondents' application to strike off the petitioner's defence for non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order dated 8-7-1986. The Rent Controller's order required the deposit of rent arrears for a specific period but notably omitted any direction regarding the payment of future monthly rent. The respondents sought to strike off the defence due to non-payment of rent for July 1986. The petitioner argued that in the absence of a specific direction for future rent in the initial order, no default occurred regarding subsequent months. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that an amendment to the relevant rent legislation, effective 1-10-1984, rendered the respondents' application liable to dismissal because the petitioner had deposited the claimed arrears before filing the written statement. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contentions raised regarding the scope of the rent order and the impact of the legislative amendment required further judicial examination.
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-payment of future rent if the Rent Controller's initial tentative order did not explicitly direct the payment of such future rent?
- Does the deposit of claimed arrears of rent before the filing of a written statement protect a tenant from having their defence struck off under the amended provisions of the Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Section 13(6), Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 13, Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J .‑‑On respondents' application, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent, a tentative order was passed by the Rent Controller dated 8‑7‑1986, which appears at page 38 of the petition. According to the said order, the petitioner was directed to deposit rent for the disputed shop premises from July 1985 to 30th June, 1986 at the rate of Rs.150 per month before the next date of hearing. No mention, however, was made with regard to future payment of rent. The respondents made an application under section 13(6) of Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on 30‑8‑1986, for striking off the defence of the petitioner on the ground of non‑compliance of order dated 8‑7‑1986. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 4‑11‑1986. The order of the Rent Controller was challenged by the respondents in the High Court in FAO, which was allowed as per impugned judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner' that there being no direction in the order of the Rent Controller dated 8‑7‑1986 with regard to deposit of future monthly rent, the question of any default for not depositing the rent for the month July 1986 did not arise in the facts and circumstances of this case. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the amendment introduced in section 13 of the Rent Ordinance` VI of 1959 on 1‑10‑1984, the application of the respondents itself was liable to be dismissed as the petitioner had, before the filing of the written statement, deposited the claimed arrears of rent.
3. The contentions raised above require examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,000. The appeal will be heard on the same record with liberty to the parties to file documents, if any, before the next date of hearing.
As the point involved is short, the appeal shall be made ready and fixed for hearing on 29‑5‑1988.
M.I./A‑292/S Leave granted.