MUHAMMAD FAZAL vs TARIQ JAVED and others
Respondents filed an ejectment application against the petitioner, who was confined in jail, through his minor son represented by his mother as next friend. The Rent Controller ordered the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent and future rent at an enhanced rate under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Upon non-compliance, the petitioner's defence was struck off and his ejectment was ordered. After unsuccessful appeals and a dismissed writ petition, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined contentions that the petitioner, being detained in jail, was not served with notice and that representation through a next friend while alive and reachable in jail was legally incompetent. The Court found that the contentions required consideration, granted leave to appeal, and issued interim directions regarding security and continued deposit of rent at the earlier rate.
- Whether an ejectment application against a tenant confined in jail is legally valid when the tenant is not personally served with notice in jail?
- Is it competent to implead a tenant who is alive and in jail through a next friend?
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a rent deposit order when the tenant was condemned unheard?
- Section 13(6), Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
' ABDUL SHAKURUL, SALAM, J.--Respondents 1 and 2 filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on the ground of re-construction and default in payment of rent.
2. The petitioner was confined in jail and he was impleaded through his minor son Jamshed Iqbal whose mother Mst. Khurshid was shown as his next friend. She filed a written reply contesting the application and saying that the rent at the rate of Rs, 100 was being deposited in Court. The learned Rent Controller passed an order on 12-10-1987 under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs, 9,500 and Rs,500 per month. For non-compliance of the order, defence of the petitioner was struck off and he was ordered to be ejected vide order dated 7-3-1988. Having failed in appeal, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No, 904 of 1989. It was urged on his behalf that the rate of monthly rent was Rs,100 which was being regularly deposited with the Rent Controller since before the ejectment application was filed, and so there was no question of arrears nor justification for a direction for deposit of rent at the rate of Rs, 500 per month; consequently, the defence of the petitioner could not be struck off for noncompliance with such an order. It was also contended that the petitioner who was detained in jail was not served with any notice and had been condemned unheard by the. Learned Rent Controller. The contention did not find favour with the learned single Judge who dismissed the petition vide order dated 16-9-1989. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case of the petitioner who was in jail merited more consideration than it has been bestowed. It is submitted that the petitioner being in jail and undeniably not served there with a notice in the ejectment application, the proceedings could not culminate in his order of ejectment. The ejectment application itself though filed against him was through his minor son and the latter's mother shown as a next friend was not competent when the petitioner was very much alive on this earth and could be sued and served in jail where misfortune had taken him.
4. Contentions raised require consideration.
5. Security in the. Sum of Rs, 5,000. Rent at the same rate as was being earlier deposited before the Rent Controller shall be deposited regularly.