KHALID HAMEED vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking to challenge the dismissal of the petitioner's constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the concurrent orders of the lower courts directing the ejectment of the tenant-petitioner. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could validly pass an order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when the eviction application allegedly did not plead default in rent payment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention was factually incorrect as the eviction application indeed pleaded default, and consequently, non-compliance with the rent deposit order justified the striking off of the tenant's defence and subsequent ejectment. The key principle laid down is that where default in rent is duly pleaded and an order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is violated, the Rent Controller acts lawfully in striking off the defence and ordering eviction.
- Can a Rent Controller make an order under Section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 if default in payment of rent has been pleaded?
- Is the striking off of a tenant's defence justified upon failure to comply with a rent deposit order under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Section 13(6), Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was a tenant under respondents Nos. 3 to 7 in a house situate in Sahiwal. The said respondents filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner on a number of grounds including the grounds of personal need, reconstruction and the default in the payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller made an order under section 13 (6). Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as well as the future rent by certain specified dates. The petitioner failed to comply with this order.
Consequently, the learned Rent Controller struck off his defence and directed his ejectment. He filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed. He then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of ejectment.
This was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed that the petitioner had failed to comply with the order made by the learned Rent Controller under section 13 (6), Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. It is however, stated that as in this case, the respondents had not taken the plea of default in the payment of rent for seeking his eviction, it was not open to the Rent Controller to make an order under the said provisions of the Ordinance. It is not necessary to examine this plea on the legal plane as it is factually incorrect, for, in paragraph 5 of their application, the respondents did allege that the petitioner had failed to pay the rent to them.
3. As non-compliance with the order under section 13 (6) ibid, was not disputed, the defence of the petitioner was rightly struck off by the learned trial Court. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD SAQIB vs S.M. MUSHTAQ 2015 YLR 723