P L D 1981 Lahore 770 (PLP)

Respondent No. 1, Muhammad Siddique, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, made an application for eviction of the petitioner, Muhammad Bashir, .from a house. On 18th September 1980, the Rent Controller who was seized of the application, made an order, under subsection (6) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance, directing the petitioner to deposit rent for the period from June, 1979 to September, 1980 till 18th October, 1980, at the rate of Rs. 50 per mensem, and also pay future rent for each month, at the above rate, before the 15th day of the next month. The petitioner did not deposit any rent after the Rent Controller had made the aforesaid order and, therefore, on 20th December, 1980 the petitioner's defence was struck off and his eviction was ordered. The petitioner challenged the order of the learned Rent Controller by means of an appeal which was dismissed by an Additional District Judge. He has, therefore, filed this writ petition to assail the orders of the two Tribunals below.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before the learned Rent Controller had ordered deposit of rent, the petitioner had already deposited advance tent for the following periods on the dates mentioned against each :- (a) From July 1978 to June 1979, 2nd July 1978. (b) From July 1979 to June 1980, 5th July 1979. (c) From July 1980 to June 1981, 2nd July 1980. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent bad withdrawn the entire rent deposited as above on 31st January 1979. 5th July 1979, 23rd June 1930 and 20th July 1980. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner had not committed any default qua the deposit of arrears of rent or future tent and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller was not warranted by the provisions of sub section (6) of section 13 of the said Ordinance. In this connection, reliance was placed by him on Salahuddin Butt v. Khawaja Muhammad Tariq P L D 1981 Lah. 132.

3. It was denied by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner had deposited rent for the period from July 1978 to June 1981 and the same had also been withdrawn by the respondent as aforesaid. It was, however, urged by him that since the petitioner did not deposit a penny after the making of order under subsection (6) of section 13 of the said Ordinance, his defence was rightly struck off by the learned Rent Controller. He relied on S.

1. H. Zaidi v. M. Shujaat Usmani P L D 1980 Lab. 158, and Water and Power Development Authority v. Syed Aftab Ali and another 1981 C L C 579, to support his contention.

4. The case of Water and Power Development Authority is distinguishable inasmuch as in that case the rent was alleged to have been paid to the land lady and was not deposited in the office of the Rent Controller. In the instant case, however, the rent was deposited with the Rent Controller. The case of S. I. H. Zaidi has no bearing on the point in issue. In the case of Salahuddin Butt I had allowed adjustment of rent which was deposited after the Rent Controller had ordered the deposit of rent. Thus, none of the authorities cited at the bar directly deal with the question involved in the case in hand.

5. The object behind the provisions of subsection (6) of section 13 of the said Ordinance is to test the bona fides of the tenant in the matter of defending ejectment proceedings brought against him and to ensure payment of outstanding rent and future rent to the landlord. This object was fulfilled A in the instant case inasmuch as the petitioner had already deposited the rent which was required to be deposited by him in pursuance of the order of the learned Rent Controller. It is not denied that the petitioner had shown to the learned Rent Controller receipts relating to the deposits made by him before his defence was struck off. It was also conceded by learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent had withdrawn the rent deposited by the petitioner before the petitioner was taken to task by the learned Rent Controller. Thus, the purpose for which order under sub section (6) was made had been served and there was hardly any occasion to apply a guideline against the petitioner. The view taken by the two tribunals below that the deposits made by the petitioner were of no avail to him because they were not made in pursuance of the order of the learned Rent Controller is too technical to earn approval of this Court because that offends against the letter and spirit of the provisions of subsection (6) of section 13 of the said Ordinance. I am, therefore, unable to uphold the order made by the learned Rent Controller as also the order of the learned appellate authority.

6. Resultantly, I accept this petition, set aside the orders of the two tribunals below and direct that the learned Rent Controller shall redecide the ejectment matter in the light of the above observations and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 27th June 1981. S. Q. Petition accepted.