Raja AURANGZEB And Others vs THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld orders from the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge striking off the petitioners' defence in ejectment proceedings. The Rent Controller had ordered the tenants to deposit arrears and future rent; upon their failure to comply fully, their defence was struck off. The petitioners argued that the shortfall was minimal, resulted from inadvertence, and should have been adjusted against a security deposit held by the landlord. The Supreme Court found that the petitioners failed to provide any valid legal ground for the short deposit before the lower courts and did not claim that the order was misunderstood or that compliance was impossible. Consequently, the Court held that the lower courts acted with competence and jurisdiction in striking off the defence due to the proved default. The petition was dismissed, though the Court granted the petitioners four months to vacate the premises, conditional upon the payment of all outstanding and future rent.
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for a short deposit of rent in ejectment proceedings?
- Is a security deposit held by a landlord automatically adjustable against a court-ordered rent deposit?
- Does a failure to provide a valid explanation for a rent deposit shortfall justify striking off a defence in rent proceedings?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dismissing a Constitution Petition filed by petitioners by which they sought to challenge the order of the Rent Controller striking of their defence in ejectment proceedings initiated against them by respondent-landlord which order was upheld on appeal by the Additional District Judge.
2. The Rent Controller passed the order striking of petitioner's defence as he held that they had failed to comply with the earlier order passed by him on 26-4-1983 directing them to deposit arrears of rent and future rent in Court. The Additional District Judge took the same view and it was also affirmed by the High Court.
3. Raja Muhammad Anwar learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the non-compliance of the order of the Rent Controller dated 26-4-1983 was only to the extent of short deposit of Rs. 25 only which was due to inadvertence on petitioner's part which ought to have been condoned. Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly sum of Rs. 6,000 was lying in deposit as security with the landlord and any shortage in the deposit was adjustable against that amount.
4. The first plea advanced before us was not even raised by the petitioners before the Rent Controller.
5. In fact, as pointed out by the High Court in the impugned judgment petitioners did not show "any valid ground acceptable in law as to why the rent directed has been short-deposited. It was not the case of the tenants that the tentative order was not properly conveyed or understood by them.
6. It was also not the case that the tenants were prevented from making the deposit on any ground beyond their control. In this view of the matter, the; default clearly stood proved and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation offered in support of admitted short-deposit, the Courts below acted with competence and well within jurisdiction in striking of the defence of the present petitioner's."
7. The second plea raised by the learned counsel was also urged before the High Court and it has been rightly rejected for cogent reasons.
8. The petition is therefore dismissed.
9. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners prays that at least four months' the may be granted to petitioners to seek alternate accommodation for their business and vacate the demised premises.
10. On the peculiar facts of this case we are impressed with this plea. We therefore direct that warrant of petitioner's eviction from the demised premises shall not issue for four months from today provided they deposit all rent due and also future rent for four months in advance in Court. On their failure to hand over the premises to the landlord after four months, they shall be evicted with police-aid without further notice.
Cited by 1 case
- Messrs MERIDIAN CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. vs RIAZ AHMED 2001 MLD 1681