1986 PLP 793 (MLD)

Haji Allah Ditta v. Mst. Shahzadi Bilqis and another 1980 S C M R 91 and Muhammad Yousaf and another v. Mst. Rashida Zohra 1979 C L C 4 44 rel. Elahi Bakhsh Vijdani for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Rafiq for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 9th April, 1984. The petitioner was ordered to be ejected from a house by the orders of the Rent Controller, of 16‑11‑1980. The petitioner had declined to accept the respondents as their landlords and the learned Rent Controller after coming to a conclusion that such relationship existed between the parties ordered the ejectment on 16‑11‑1980. The petitioner challenged the orders in appeal. The appellate Court while admitting the appeal directed the petitioner to deposit the rent but this order was not complied with in the sense that the rent was not deposited in the name of the respondents but in the name of their predecessor‑in -interest. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on account of this default, vide his order, dated 1‑4‑1982. The petitioner has brought a writ petition challenging the orders of the Courts below.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred me to the case of S.M. Younas and 2 others v. Messrs Crescent Publicity Service 1980 C L C 441 in order to show that failure to comply with the orders of the appellate authority' will effect only the 'orders of stay and the appeal cannot be dismissed. That case is not on all four with the present case because in that case the orders of deposit of rent was made by the High Court on the application of the landlord and it was held that it was not a case of tenant seeking stay of order of eviction having been directed to deposit the rent as a condition for grant of stay. On the other hand, subsection (5) of section 15 which has been added by way of amendment clearly provides for dismissal of the appeal summarily, in case the' appellant makes default in compliance with the order ‑made by the appellate authority. In case of default, therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed summarily and on this score the orders of the appellate authority of 1‑4‑1982 are not open to question.

3. The learned counsel has also argued that the orders of the trial Court were actually complied with inasmuch as the rent was deposited in the Court although it was deposited in the name of the predecessor- in‑interest of the respondents and not in the name of the respondents. The question which will determine this proposition is whether such a deposit will be a tender which is legally, acceptable. The answer is obviously in the negative. The rent had to be deposited in the name of the respondents who have brought an ejectment application and if the deposit has been made in the name of a wrong person even though he may be predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, this will not be a lawful tender. In this regard the learned Additional District Judge ha rightly relied on the rule laid dawn by the Supreme Court in the case of Haji Allah Ditta.v. Mst. Shahzadi Bilqis and another 1980 S C M 1 41 and the case of Muhammad Yousaf and another v. Mst. Rashid In view of the above considerations I find no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. There "shall be no order as to coats. The petitioner is, however, allowed a period of one month to hand over the possession of the premises to the landlord. M.Y.H Petition dismissed.