ABDUL GHAFOOR vs Haji MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN

1. DORAB PATEL, J.-The petitioner is the tenant of a shop owned by the, respondent and the respondent has filed an eviction application for the petitioner's eviction which is pending in the Court of the Rent Controller, Multan. In the events that happened, the Rent Controller passed the usual order for the deposit of rent under subsection (6) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (hereinafter called the said Ordinance). And by this order, the petitioner was directed to disposed the rents of September and October, 1972 before 14-4-1973. The petitioner did not comply with this order and when the case was called for orders on 3-5-1973, he informed the Rent Controller that be had deposited the rents of September and October on 24-4-1973. He further stated that he had not complied with the Court's order of 23-3-1973 because his sister had died on 7-4-1973. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner's explanation proved his default within the meaning of subsection (6) of section 13 of the said Ordinance therefore, he struck off his defence and, ordered his eviction. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order in the District Court, Multan which was dismissed. He then filed a second appeal in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed on 19-5-1976. Hence this petition for leave.

2. Mr. Yusuf A.I Khan attempted to persuade us, on the basis of pronouncements by this Court, that the petitioner's failure to deposit rent within time did not amount to default because the delay was on account of his sisters death. The difficulty in the way of accepting this submission: is that the petitioner's sister died on 7-4-1976. It is true that the petitioner stated that he had to take her dead body to Mailsi which was about eight miles away, but this plea, which appears to have been advanced properly only in the High Court, was examined by the learned Single Judge, who pointed out that all the requisite ceremonies consequent on the death of the petitioner's sister would have been over by the fourth day of her death. This means that the petitioner could have returned from Mailsi by 11-4-1973 and even if he had done so, he would still have had time to comply with the order for deposit of rent because the rent had to be deposited by 14-4-1971. Instead he did not deposit it until 24-4-1973 and even at this stage of the case there is no explanation whatsoever of the failure to deposit rent between 11th of April and the 24th of April. Another circumstance relevant to, the petition is that the petitioner was running a shop and it is not his case that his shop was closed from the 7th of April to the 24th of April, 1973.