NAVEED NAWAZISH MALIK vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/APPELLATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an order striking off a tenant's defence in an eviction proceeding. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent on grounds of rent default. The Rent Controller had ordered the tenant to deposit arrears and future rent by specific dates under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The tenant failed to comply with the deadline, leading the Rent Controller to strike off the defence, a decision upheld by the Additional District Judge. However, the High Court reversed this, accepting the tenant's explanation that they attempted to deposit the rent on the final day but were prevented from doing so. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that prior jurisprudence consistently holds that a tenant who waits until the last day to deposit rent and subsequently fails to do so bears full responsibility for the default. The Court found the High Court's acceptance of the tenant's excuse required further judicial consideration, thereby setting the stage for a review of the strict compliance requirement for rent deposits.
- Does a tenant's failure to deposit rent by the deadline due to an alleged last-minute attempt to pay constitute a valid excuse for non-compliance?
- Is a tenant solely responsible for the consequences of defaulting on a rent deposit order when they wait until the final day to make the payment?
- Section 13(6), Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The relevant facts are that the petitioner had filed a petition for the eviction of respondent No,3 from the shop in a Commercial Zone, Liberty Market, Gulberg, Lahore, on the ground that the tenant-respondent No,3 had defaulted in payment of rent from November 1985, to May 1986. On 13-11-1986, an order was made by the Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance directing respondent No,3 to deposit the arrears of rent from November 1985 to October 1986 before 30-11-1986 and also pay the future rent before 15th of each succeeding month. Respondent No,3, however, committed a default in compliance with the aforesaid order; in that the rent was deposited on 30-11-1986 and not before 30-11-1986.
2. ' The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for striking off his defence. This was granted by the Rent Controller vide order dated 15-2-1987. The respondent's appeal against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 25-10-1987 but the High Court on the writ petition filed by respondent No,3 accepted the same observing that the explanation given by the tenant that he had tried to deposit the rent on 29-11-1986 but was prevented from doing so despite his best effort, had force.
3. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, in support of this petition for leave to appeal, has submitted that this Court has repelled the kind of the explanation offered by the tenant and accepted by the High Court in several decisions inter alia Ch. Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Rashid (1985 SCMR 21) and Fazalul Rahman v. Mst. Sarwari Begum and others (1986 SCMR 1156) on the view that if a tenant takes the risk of waiting for the last day for making a deposit and fails to do so he has himself to blame for the default.
4. ' The case requires further consideration. Security in the sum of Rs,5,000.
5. ' The appeal will be made ready on the present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and put up for hearing at an early date.
6. ' Leave to .