PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Others vs MUHAMMAD JALIL UR REHMAN
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 14-10-1979, which dismissed a constitutional petition arising from the striking off of a tenant's defence for non-deposit of rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions involve whether the Collector was a necessary party in an ejectment application against a provincial educational institution, and whether departmental delay constitutes sufficient ground for the Rent Controller to extend the time for depositing rent. The Supreme Court held that contentions not raised before the High Court cannot be entertained for the first time, that the Province of Punjab was properly impleaded through the Education Officer without need for the Collector, and that departmental procedures do not amount to objective unavoidability justifying an extension of time for rent deposit under section 13(6). The key principle laid down is that delay in depositing rent can only be excused upon a showing of objective unavoidability.
- Can a legal contention not raised before the High Court be entertained for the first time by the Supreme Court?
- Whether failure to implead the Collector results in a miscarriage of justice in an ejectment application against a provincial educational institution?
- Does departmental delay in making rent deposits constitute objective unavoidability empowering the Rent Controller to extend the time under section 13(6)?
- Section 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 14-10-1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition, was dismissed. It had arisen out of strikingof the defence of the petitioner-tenant vis-a-vis an educational institution functioning in a rented premises, on account of non-deposit of rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance. 1959.
2. Learned counsel has raised two contentions: One, that the ejectment application should have been filed against the Collector, failure to implead him has resulted in miscarriage of justice; and secondly, that although default in deposit of rent under section 13(6) on time is not denied, the Rent Controller should have extended the time for deposit as the departmental representative got delayed in making the deposit on account of departmental procedures.
3. None of these arguments was raised before the High Court. They, therefore, cannot be entertained at this stage. However, they are also without any substance. The Province of Punjab was impleaded through the Education Officer. Not only this, the learned counsel has failed to show that the Collector was also a necessary party nor he is able to show that failure to implead the Collector has in any way resulted in miscarriage of justice.
4. The explanation for non-deposit of rent on time it is untenable. As held by this Court repeatedly, unless the reason for non-deposit shows objective unavoidability, the Rent Controller had no power to ignore the delay in making the deposit under section 13(6). Looked at from whatever angle, this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 11 cases
- Nasir Ishaq Malik Versus Ch. Hasan Nawaz 2026 YLR 928
- Irfan Ullah vs Fayaz & others 2022 PHC 562, 2025 MLD 918
- Irfan Ullah Versus Fayaz 2025 MLD 918
- SAEED MUSHTAQ ABBASI vs ABDUL RAUF SABIR and 2 others 2019 CLC 985
- Dr. MUHAMMAD SAFDAR vs Mst. SHAISTA AMJAD 2015 MLD 1342
- SHAUKAT ALI vs ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER etc. 2015 PLJ Lahore 405
- Shaukat Ali vs Additional Rent Controller, etc 2015 PLJ Lahore 405, 2015 C.L.R. 513
- SHAUKAT ALI Versus ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER CANTONMENT BOARD, LAHORE 2017 CLCN 21
- MUHAMMAD SAQIB vs S.M. MUSHTAQ 2015 YLR 723
- ZEHRA BEGUM Versus PAKISTAN BURMA SHELL LTD. 1992 MLD 2494
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Education, Lahore and others 1990 SCMR 476