ABID HUSSAIN Versus HAJRA BEGUM
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Sind High Court, which upheld the striking off of the petitioner-tenant's defence and the subsequent ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller. The core legal question involves whether the tenant's failure to deposit monthly rent pursuant to the Rent Controller's order was justified by illness, and whether the courts below erred in rejecting the plea of default. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in depositing the rent, noting contradictory evidence regarding his illness and his ability to move and appear before the court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that unsubstantiated and contradictory pleas regarding illness do not constitute a valid defense against a finding of willful default in rent deposit matters.
- Whether contradictory evidence regarding a tenant's illness can justify a failure to deposit rent as ordered by the Rent Controller?
- Can a Rent Controller strike off the defense of a tenant for non-compliance with a rent deposit order?
- Whether the High Court's upholding of an ejectment order based on a finding of willful default warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
ORDER
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J. ‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court, Sukkur Bench at Sukkur, dated 5‑3‑1987, whereby the finding of the Rent Controller for striking off the defence of the petitioner was upheld.
2. The facts of the case need not to be given. Suffice it to say that the petitioner/ tenant had failed to comply with the order of the Rent Controller, dated 14‑1‑1985, directing him, that is, the tenant, to deposit the monthly rent of the property in dispute at the rate of Rs.200 per month. This led the landlord to move an application for striking off the defence of the petitioner. This application was resisted by the tenant and his case was that he was not a wilful defaulter, he could not deposit of rent on the date due because of his illness. The Rent Controller considered the case of the parties and ultimately held, vide his order dated 1st June, 1985, that the petitioner violated the order of deposit of rent, thus struck off his defence and passed ejectment order against him. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed through the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgments of the Courts below. While dealing with the case of default committed by the petitioner, the High Court observed:
"The case of the appellant was that he was ill and he wanted to examine the doctor who had given the medical certificate before the Rent Controller but this request was rejected on the ground that the doctor had certified that appellant No.1 was ill from 10‑3‑1985 to 12‑3‑1985 and was unable to move whereas the appellant No.1 had himself filed affidavit before the Rent Controller that he approached the Nazir of the Court on 12‑3‑1985 for depositing rent. The learned Rent Controller has also pointed out that on the one hand the doctor certified that appellant No.1 was unable to move whereas the appellant No.1 has stated in his affidavit that he had appeared in Court on 12‑3‑1985. Apart from this, the learned Rent Controller had taken note of the fact that appellant No.1 had become ill due to shock of the death of his relation whereas the doctor had certified that appellant No.1 was suffering from attack of appendicitis. In the circumstances the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the delay, in the deposit of the rent required to be deposited by the Rent order, had not been explained."
As per above, we find that the learned Courts below have rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioner because no reliance could be placed on the contradictory evidence produced by the petitioner.
4. Thus, finding no force in this petition, the same is dismissed.
M. I. /A‑168/5 Petition dismissed.