ISLAM COAL CO. Versus GHULAM RASOOL
This matter arises from an eviction petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. A tentative rent order was passed by the Rent Controller directing the deposit of arrears and future monthly rent. Subsequently, an application under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 to strike off the petitioner's defence for non-payment of future rent was dismissed by the Rent Controller, who found that the petitioner had misunderstood the tentative order and accepted the explanation as satisfactory. However, upon appeal by the respondents, the High Court set aside the Rent Controller's order and directed eviction. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court was unjustified in interfering with the Rent Controller's discretionary acceptance of the explanation regarding an ambiguous order, and that the eviction application itself was liable to be dismissed due to prior deposit of arrears under an amended provision. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine these contentions.
- Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the Rent Controller's order accepting the tenant's explanation regarding ambiguity in a tentative rent order?
- Whether an application for striking off defence under section 13(6) of the Rent Ordinance is liable to be dismissed if arrears of rent are deposited before the filing of the written statement following the 1984 amendment?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J .‑‑On respondents' application for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent, a tentative rent order was passed by the Rent Controller on 8‑7‑1986 directing the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent from 1st July 1985 to 30th Jun? 1986 and future monthly rent before the 15th of each next month. The respondents moved an application under section 13(6) of the Rent Ordinance VI of 1959 for striking off the defence of the petitioner alleging default in payment of future monthly rent. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller by this order dated 4‑11‑1986 on the finding that the petitioner had misunderstood the order dated 8‑7‑1986 and the explanation furnished by him was satisfactory. However, on appeal of the respondents, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside by the High Court as per impugned judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the explanation of the petitioner having been accepted by the Rent Controller in view of some ambiguity in the order, the learned High Court was not justified in interfering with such order and directing eviction of the petitioner. It was further contended 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./I‑43/S Leave granted
Cited by 2 cases
- Irfan Ullah vs Fayaz & others 2022 PHC 562, 2025 MLD 918
- Irfan Ullah Versus Fayaz 2025 MLD 918