NAJMUDDIN Versus ANIS FATIMA
The petitioner, a tenant of a plot in Karachi, had deposited monthly rent in a miscellaneous rent case from September 1978 onwards. Subsequently, the respondent-landlord filed an ejectment application on the ground of default, leading the Rent Controller to pass a tentative rent deposit order for arrears. The petitioner sought adjustment of the amounts already deposited or permission to transfer/withdraw and redeposit the same, but the Rent Controller struck off the petitioner's defence for non-compliance with the tentative order. The High Court dismissed the tenant's first rent appeal. The core legal question concerned whether an existing rent deposit in court can be adjusted or transferred towards a tentative rent order in subsequent ejectment proceedings to avoid a default finding. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider the legality of requiring a tenant to redeposit rent already lying in court, noting that leave was granted on similar points in connected petitions, and ordered that the status quo continue.
- Whether rent already deposited in court in separate proceedings can be adjusted towards a tentative rent order in subsequent ejectment proceedings?
- Does a failure to redeposit rent that is already lying in court justify striking off the tenant's defence for default?
- Whether a tenant can be held to be a defaulter when the rent amount is already available in court record?
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J. ‑‑The petitioner, a tenant of Plot No.187‑A/3 Bihar Colony, Karachi, deposited rent at the rate of Rs.90 per month in Misc. Rent Case No.5304/1978 from September, 1978 onwards. After about four years respondent Mst. Anis Fatima filed ejectment application being Rent Case No.2576/1982 against the petitioner on the ground of default. The learned Rent Controller, vide order, dated 17‑3‑1984 in this case passed Tentative Order of deposit of rent from May, 1979 to February, 1984, amounting to Rs.5,200.
2. The petitioner filed an application that the amount already lying deposited in Misc. Rent Case No.5304/1978 may be adjusted and the Tentative Order of rent may be modified accordingly. In the alternative, the petitioner also filed another application that the respondent or her husband may either withdraw all the rent lying deposited in aforesaid Misc. Rent Case or the petitioner be allowed to withdraw the rent from the said case and deposit the same in the ejectment proceedings filed by the respondent. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 21‑2‑1985 struck off the defence of the petitioner. First Rent Appeal was filed by the petitioner against the said order in the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 23‑2‑1987.
3. It is contended that the adjustment of the amount and acceptance of the said deposit of arrears would legally be proper in this case, or the amount could be ordered to be transferred, but deposit of the amount again as arrears is neither legally correct nor proper and that the amount having already been deposited there is no arrears at all and that the petitioner being poor man could not deposit the same amount again in the rent case under reference.
4. On similar point leave was granted in Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.420/K/86 and 20/K/87. We grant leave in this petition as well. To be heard along with the said two C . P. L. As , on the present record with liberty to the parties to file further documents. Security Rs.500.
Status quo, granted by the Court per order, dated 30‑8‑1987 to continue till the final decision of the appeal.
M.I./N‑60/S Leave granted.