MUNAWAR DIN AND Others vs Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM AND 11 Other
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court order that dismissed a second appeal regarding an ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core dispute involved the petitioners' failure to deposit rent arrears as directed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority. The petitioners argued that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction because the tenancy was allegedly an agricultural lease, not governed by rent laws, and that the Rent Controller acted improperly by striking off their defence despite a High Court stay order. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller was justified in striking off the defence due to the petitioners' admitted default in rent payments. The Court emphasized that the Rent Restriction Ordinance contains mandatory provisions requiring the Rent Controller to strike off a defence upon failure to deposit rent. Furthermore, the Court declined to address the jurisdictional argument, noting it was already the subject of a pending Letters Patent appeal, and found no evidence that the stay order was communicated to the Rent Controller before the ejectment order was passed.
- Does a Rent Controller have the discretion to refrain from striking off a tenant's defence upon failure to deposit rent as ordered?
- Can a party agitate a jurisdictional issue in Supreme Court proceedings when that same issue is currently pending in a Letters Patent appeal before the High Court?
- Is an order of ejectment valid if the Rent Controller strikes off a defence for non-payment of rent without knowledge of a High Court stay order?
- Section 13(6), West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 2-10-1972, whereby a second appeal filed by the present petitioners against an order of ejectment made by the Rent Controller, and upheld by the appellate authority, was dismissed with costs.
2. The dispute concerns a plot of urban land measuring three kanals and seven marlas, situate in Multan district. The respondents, as owners of tile land, sued for ejectment of the petitioners on the ground of default in the payment of rent. On the petitioners' denial of the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue on this point, and after deciding the same in favour of the respondents he ordered the appellants on the 27th of July 1966 to deposit arrears of rent as well as future rent by specified dates. The petitioners preferred an appeal against this order which was, however, rejected by the appellate authority, and the petitioners were directed to deposit the arrears of rent before the 15th of February 1967, and also to pay future monthly rent before the 15th of each calendar month. The petitioners did not comply with this order, and instead preferred a second appeal in the High Court, and obtained an order on the 16 of February 1967 staying proceedings before the Rent Controller.
3. However, on that very date, in ignorance of the High Court's order, the learned Rent Controller struck off the defence of the petitioners under section 13 (6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance for their failure to deposit the arrears of rent by the specified date and ordered their ejectment from the land in dispute. In these circumstances, the second appeal filed by the petitioners wasth dismissed on 23-10-1967 as having become infructuous. An appeal under the Letters Patent is still pending in the High Court against this order.
4. The petitioners commenced a second round of litigation by filing an appeal against the order of ejectment made by the Rent Controller on 16-2-1967, but the same was dismissed by the appellate authority. Their second appeal has also been dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the petitioners had clearly defaulted in depositing the arrears of rent before the 15th of February 1967, and, therefore, the Rent Controller had no option but to strike off their defence and order their ejectment. The learned Judge in the High Court has repelled the petitioners' contention that the Rent Controller could not proceed in the matter in view of the interim order made by the High Court on 16-2-1967 in the previous second appeal filed by the petitioners.
5. It is submitted by Raja Said Akbar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that this case involves an important question regarding the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, as in previous litigation between the parties it had been held that the tenancy was not governed by the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, but was in the nature of an agricultural lease. In support of this submission, the Darned counsel wanted to draw our attention to a copy of a judgment of a civil Court, but we have not allowed this document to be brought on record as it was not produced before the Courts below. The learned counsel has contended, in the second place, that once the High Court had stayed proceedings on 16-2-1967, the Rent Controller did not have power to proceed in the matter and for this reason also his order is invalid.
6. We see no substance in these submissions. The question whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to proceed in the matter or not still forms the subject-matter of the Letters Patent appeal pending in the High Court, and it cannot, therefore, be permitted to be agitated in the present proceedings, which are confined solely to the question whether the learned Rent Controller was justified to strike off the petitioners' defence and order their ejectment on the ground of their failure to deposit the arrears of rent by the specified date. The learned Judge in the High Court has rightly observed that default being proved and admitted, the learned Rent Controller had no choice in the matter in view of the mandatory terms employed by the Legislature in subsection (6) of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. As there was nothing before the High Court to show that the interim stay order in the previous second appeal of the petitioners had been made by the High Court before the Rent Controller passed his order, the learned Judge was clearly right in not giving effect to this contention as well.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.