Miss E. ANDREWS vs NIAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS
The petitioner, a tenant, sought leave to appeal against an eviction order passed due to her default in depositing rent as directed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Rent Controller had initially ordered the petitioner to deposit arrears in installments and pay future rent, but upon her failure to comply, her defence was struck off, leading to an eviction order. The petitioner argued that the default was not deliberate, citing her counsel's failure to inform her of the specific payment details, and requested condonation of delay. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner admitted her counsel had instructed her to deposit rent, yet she failed to inquire about the specific amount or deadline, and further neglected to pay current rent for over six months. The Court held that the petitioner was guilty of laches and that the Controller's action of striking off the defence was justified under the law. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Does a tenant's failure to inquire about the specific amount or deadline for rent deposit after being instructed by counsel constitute a valid excuse for default?
- Is a Rent Controller justified in striking off a tenant's defence upon default in complying with an order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can a tenant claim lack of deliberate default when they have failed to pay current rent for a period exceeding six months?
- Section 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner was a tenant of Plot No, 2-R.B.6/106, Kristian Chand Narumal Building, Arambagh Road, Karachi, under respondents Nos. 1 to 7 at a monthly rent of Rs,
50. On 24-1967, the respondents filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on basis of default in payment of rent.
2. ' On 5-8-1968, the Controller made an order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, requiring the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent in four monthly installments and payment of future rent before the 15th day of each subsequent month. The petitioner again made a default whereupon the Controller struck off her defence on 22-9-1968. In the absence of opposition, order for eviction of the petitioner was passed on 11-7-1969.
3. ' On 11-2-1969, the petitioner moved the Controller for permission to deposit arrears of rent pleading that her counsel had failed to intimate to her the order passed by the Controller under section 13(6).
4. The explanation offered by the petitioner has been rejected concurrently by the Controller, the District Judge and a learned Judge of the High Court A and order of her eviction maintained.
5. ' The petitioner seeks leave to appeal claiming that there is no deliberate default on her part and that it was a fit case to condone the delay as was held by this Court in Ghulam Muhammad Khan Londkhor v. Safdar All (1).
6. ' The plea raised is factually incorrect. It is pointed out by the Additional District Judge who dismissed we petitioner's appeal that in her statement she admitted that her counsel had told her that she was to deposit rent but he omitted to mention Vie exact amount. Even if the statement is accepted the petitioner is, however, guilty of laches in not inquiring from B her counsel the amount as well as the date by which the arrears of rent were to be deposited and also in not depositing the current rent for a period of more than six months. On these facts, it was hardly a case for condonation of delay. The intention of the Legislature is manifest by the provision that in case of default, the Controller shall strike off the tenant's defence. The order passed by the Controller is thus fully justice and rightly maintained, on appeal, by the District Judge and the High Court.
7. ' Leave to appeal is refused and the .