1991 PLP 1418 (CLC)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th March, 1991. On 8th February, 1989 Mst. Iqbal Begum petitioner herein filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against respondent No.2 seeking his eviction from a shop situate in Gandam Mandi, Kasur on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal need. The application was resisted by respondent No.2 by filing a written statement on 27th June, 1989. The Rent Controller directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the future rent before the 15th day of that month. Subsequently however on 18th February, 1990 this order was modified to read that the monthly rent should be deposited by the 15th day of next month.

2. On 27th of November, 1989 and 18th February, 1990 the petitioner filed two applications complaining that the monthly rent had not been deposited by respondent No.2 in accordance with the order for, deposit of rent. The Rent Controller found force in these applications and struck off the defence of respondent No.2 on 14th April, 1990.

5. Ag grieved by this order, respondent No.2 filed an, appeal which' was accepted by the District Judge on the ground that there was no order directing the deposit of rent on the record. This Constitutional petition assails the judgment of the District Judge Kasur, dated 29th July, 1990 whereby he had set aside the order of Rent Controller striking off the defence of respondent No.2.

4. I have heard Mr. Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocate counsel for the petitioner. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the learned District Judge, that there was no order passed with regard to the deposit of rent due of any month before the 15th of next month, is based upon misreading of record. A certified copy of the order, dated 27th June, 1959 has been placed on the record of this case as (Annexure B) which shows that respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the monthly rent before 15th day of that month. There is another order, dated 18th February, 1990 (Annexure H) available on the record which shows that with the consent of the parties the order, dated 27th June, 1959 was modified and it was directed that the monthly rent be deposited by the 15th day of next month. In the face of these two orders, it is obvious that the District Judge while holding that there was no order under section 13 (6) of the Ordinance directing the respondent to deposit the rent has grossly misread the record. That being so his order is not sustainable. As a result of what has been stated above the judgment of the District Judge, dated 29th of July, 1990 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the order of Rent Controller dated 14‑4‑1990 stands restored with no order as to costs. H.B.T./I‑266/L Petition allowed.