Pakistan Case Law
1990 SCMR 557

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1990 SCMR 557
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 49 of 1988
Date1988-06-05
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ,
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant whose defence was struck off by the Rent Controller for failure to comply with a direction to deposit rent under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The petitioner challenged the High Court's dismissal of his writ petition, arguing that the one-day delay in depositing the rent for March 1986 was caused by unavoidable circumstances, specifically his father's illness, and that a single instance of delay should not warrant the striking off of his defence. The Supreme Court addressed the legal question of whether the Rent Controller possesses discretion to condone a default in depositing rent as ordered under Section 13(6). The Court held that the Rent Controller lacks the discretion to condone such defaults, distinguishing this specific statutory obligation from other rent payment provisions. Consequently, the Court refused the leave to appeal, affirming that the failure to comply with the deposit order is a strict liability matter, and found no merit in the petitioner's plea regarding mitigating circumstances.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a Rent Controller have the discretion to condone a default in the deposit of rent under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  • Is a delay of one day in depositing rent under a Rent Controller's order sufficient to justify striking off a tenant's defence?
  • Are compelling personal circumstances a valid legal ground to excuse a failure to comply with a rent deposit order under Section 13(6)?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance
rent restrictionstriking off defencedeposit of rentrent controllerstatutory defaultleave to appeal

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant whose defence has been struck off under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. His writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court.

2. ' Learned counsel while admitting that the deposit of rent for the month of March, 1986 was not in accordance with the direction of the learned Rent Controller made under section 13(6), contended that it was a delay only of one day. Therefore, the High Court should not have taken a strict view of the so-called default that the petitioner was compelled by the circumstances (illness of his father) in his failure to make deposit on due date; and that, in any case, if it was not a case of several defaults spread over a period of time, the defence could not be struck off. In this behalf, he relied on Gulzar Ahmad Pirzada v. Addl. District Judge, Lahore (1982 SCMR 616).

3. The default under section 13(6) is of a peculiar nature. As held by this Court the Rent Controller has no discretion to condone it as distinguishable from the default in payment of rent relatable to the other provision of section 13.

4. ' Accordingly the first and the last contentions of the learned counsel have no force. The judgment relied upon by him does not help the petitioner, it rather goes against him.

5. ' With regard to compelling and/or unavoidable/beyond control circumstances, after hearing the learned counsel at some length on this piint, we have no reason to differ with the assessment and findings of fact impugned before this Court. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.

Cited by 17 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.