GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Education, Lahore and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi. The petitioners, the Government of Punjab, had failed to comply with a Rent Controller's order directing the deposit of rent arrears and future monthly rent. Consequently, their defence to the eviction application was struck off under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller possesses the discretion to condone delays in rent deposits and prevent eviction when a tenant fails to comply with a deposit order. The Supreme Court held that failure to comply with the Rent Controller's direction regarding rent deposits mandates the striking off of the defence and subsequent eviction. The court affirmed that the Rent Controller lacks the power to ignore such non-compliance or condone delays, emphasizing that the statutory consequence of non-compliance is mandatory and not subject to compassionate grounds, even when the tenant is a government entity.
- Does the failure to comply with a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent mandate the striking off of the tenant's defence?
- Does a Rent Controller have the discretion to condone delays in the deposit of rent by a tenant?
- Can a tenant avoid eviction under the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 on compassionate grounds when they have failed to comply with a rent deposit order?
- Section 13(6), Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) dated 1-2-1989 whereby a Constitution petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. By that petition, petitioners sought to challenge the judgment of Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and the order of the Rent Controller, Rawalpindi by which petitioners were directed to hand over possession of the demised premises to the first respondent--the landlady--after their defence to eviction application filed by the said respondent was struck off under the provisions of section 13(6) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
2. We find that the impugned order of the Rent Controller and the judgment of the Additional District Judge are based on the admitted position of the failure of the petitioners to comply with the order of the Rent Controller dated 15-3-1988 by which they were directed to deposit Rs,8,000 being the arrears of rent from December, 1987 to 31-3-1988 and future rent from 1-4-1988 before 15th of every succeeding month. On the facts of the case, learned Additional District Judge has followed the rule laid down by this Court in Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Jalil-ur-Rehman (1986 SCMR 1705) that failure to comply with the direction of the Rent Controller regarding deposit of rent entails the necessary consequence under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, of the defence to eviction application against him being struck off, and his eviction from the demised premises, and in such a situation the Rent Controller has no power to ignore the delay in the deposit of rent by the tenant and save him from eviction.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners however vehemently urged that since the Provincial Government is running a school in the demised premises, the delay in the deposit of rent may be condoned.
4. ' This plea is an appeal on compassionate grounds, rather in law, and the High Court has already allowed extra time to petitioners to vacate the premises. Nothing more is justified, and the petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUKHTAR BEGUM Versus DILDAR AHMED 1994 CLC 1210