Syed GHULAM SHAH BUKHARI vs MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR

1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J. This is a tenant's appeal, by special leave, from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the former High Court of West Pakistan, whereby the order for his ejectment from shop No. D/616-617, Kucha Ganga Ram, Bohar Bazar, Rawalpindi, as made by the Trent Controller and upheld by the Additional District Judge on first appeal, was confirmed. The respondent- landlord had applied for the appellant's ejectment from the shop in question on the 9th of December 1963. On the 23rd of April 1965, a preliminary issue was struck as to whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. This was decided in favour of the landlord, and on the 24th of April 1965, the Rent Controller ordered the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 774 and to deposit the future rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per mensem before the 5th of each month. The appellant challenged this order in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who dismissed it on the 17th of December 1965. The appellant failed to deposit the rent, as directed by the Rent Controller, during all this period, and on the 3rd of January 1966, he moved an application to the Rent Controller, praying for enlargement of time for deposit of rent, which was rejected by him on the 26th of January 1966.

2. Leave to appeal was granted in this case on the 16th of April 1969, as leave had already been granted in an identical case in Civil Petition No. 39 of 1969 (Messrs Ansari Brothers Radio Dealers, Lahore v, Holy Trinity Church Trust, Lahore (PLD 1971 SC 700) to con--sider whether the Controller was competent under the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance to grant extension of time for depositing the rent. The aforesaid appeal has since been decided by this Court and the judgment is reported as PLD 1971 SC 700. It has been laid down that the Rent Controller has no powers under the Ordinance to extend the period fixed by him for depositing of the rent. In view of the law laid down by this Court, as mentioned above, there is no merit in this appeal, which has to be dismissed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant tried to argue that while admitting the appeal to a full hearing, the learned Addi--tional District Judge had suspended the order of the Rent Controller, and that the time of two months that had initially been given to him by the Rent Controller to deposit the rent, should commence from the date of the dismissal of his appeal, i.e., the 17th of December 1965. We find no substance in this con--tention. In the first place, there is no specific order of suspension of the direction of the Rent Controller with regard to the deposit of rent although the learned Additional District Judge does mention in his judgment dated the 9th of October 1967, that the order of deposit of rent was stayed by the learned District Jude, Rawalpindi, who had heard the appeal. Even if it were assumed that there was such a stay order in favour of the appellant, the dismissal of his appeal revived the order of the Rent Controller; and he should have then deposited the amount of rent within reasonable time. He could not have possibly taken the date o1 the dismissal of the appeal as a fresh starting point for the deposit of the rent within two more months' period. As already stated above, the appellant himself moved an application to the Rent Controller for extension of time, which was rightly rejected as he had no powers under the Ordinance to extend the time.

4. The respondent is absent and was placed ex parte. Therefore while dismissing this appeal, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.