Syed MUHAMMAD ZAMAN vs ABDUL KHALIQ
This review petition arises from a landlord-tenant dispute where the petitioner, a tenant, sought review of a Supreme Court judgment that had previously refused leave to appeal against an ejectment order. The core legal question was whether a tenant, having allegedly defaulted on a rent deposit order under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, could avoid the consequences of such default by claiming that a security deposit remained with the landlord, and whether the Rent Controller had discretion to waive the striking off of the defence. The Supreme Court held that the existence of a security deposit is irrelevant to the mandatory requirement of complying with a rent deposit order under Section 13(6). The Court affirmed that once a default is established, the Rent Controller has no discretion and is legally bound to strike off the tenant's defence. The Court further noted that the tenant failed to provide a timely explanation or seek condonation for the delay, thereby justifying the dismissal of the review petition.
- Is the existence of a security deposit with a landlord a relevant consideration when determining default under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Does a Rent Controller have discretion to waive the striking off of a tenant's defence once a default under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance is established?
- Can a tenant avoid the consequences of default under Section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance by offering an explanation for the delay three months after the default occurred?
- Section 13(6), Rent Restriction Ordinance
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, a tenant, seeks review of our judgment dated 25-5-1988 whereby leave to appeal was refused to him against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dated 13-5-1987 upholding Order of the Rent Controller.
2. The petitioner was proceeded against by the landlord for default in the payment of rent. On 15-8- 1981, the Rent Controller directed him under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance to deposit future rent before the 15th of the following month. There was .a default by the tenant in observing the Order which fact was pointed out by the landlord. The Rent Controller examined it and by an elaborate Order struck off his defence and ordered his ejectment. This Order was upheld by the High Court. Leave to appeal was refused against it.
3. In the review petition the main ground urged is that a substantial amount had been deposited with the landlord as security and whether the petitioner could be considered at all a defaulter, liable to be dealt with under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. In addition justification was made out for the failure to deposit the rent on time.
4. The question as to what security had remained in the hands of the landlord was not at all a relevant consideration for dealing with the default committed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. Once it was found that a default had been committed, the Rent Controller had no discretion in the matter but had to strike off the defence.
5. As regards the question whether the default had in fact taken place, or not; the Rent Controller as well as the High Court have taken note of the fact that the disability of the petitioner was not established, particularly where he was dealing with servant and agents in the matter of managing the property. He had also failed to himself explain the delay and seek condonation. He instead left it to be pointed out by the respondent/landlord and came out with an explanation and documentation about three months after the default had been committed.
6. In the circumstances, we find no ground for review and the Petition is dismissed.
AA./M-1519/SReview dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- QAISER JAVED MALIK vs PERVAIZ HAMEED and 2 others 2009 MLD 350
- SAFEER TRAVELS (PVT.) LTD. vs MUHAMMAD KHALID SHAFI through Legal Heirs 2007 PLD Supreme Court 504
- HAJVERY COLLEGE through Chief Executive, Lahore vs Mst. MASOODA BEGUM 2004 MLD 1661
- KHADIM HUSSAIN vs NASIR AHMAD 2003 SCMR 1580
- BADAL Versus THE STATE 1992 MLD 1574