2005 PLP 625 (CLC)

This order will dispose of S.A.Os. Nos.7 of 2004 to 11 of 2004, as a common question is involved therein.

2. In all these cases, the appellants filed an application for the ejectment of the respondent from the building in question. After filing of the written statements, the learned Rent Controller proceeded to frame the issues on 21-2-2004. On 3-4-2004, the learned Rent Controller purporting to act under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, proceeded to pass an order, directing the respondent in each case to deposit the future rent in Court till 15th of each month. It is an admitted fact in all these cases, the rent for the month of April, was deposited in Court on 17-4-2004. While hearing an application filed by some third party who wanted to be impleaded in the case, it was pointed out to the learned Rent Controller that the order dated 3-4-2004 has not been complied with. The learned Rent Controller noted that the rent had been deposited on 17-4-2004 by means of an application, held that the order dated 3-4-2004 has not been complied and proceeded to accept the ejectment petitions and to direct the respondents to vacate the shops within one month. This was done vide order, dated 26-4-2004. First appeals filed by the respondents in these cases were heard by a learned Additional District Judge Mailsi, who allowed the same and set aside the said order.

3. Learned counsel contends with reference to the judgment in the case of Khadim Hussain v. Nasir Ahmad 2003 SCMR 1580 that the respondents in all these cases were bound to deposit the rent for April, 2004, before 15-4-2004 and their failure to do so constituted non-compliance of the order passed under section 13(6) of the said Ordinance and resultantly, the learned Rent Controller correctly ordered the ejectment.

4. I have narrated the relevant facts above it will be seen that on 3-4-2004, the learned R.C. passed order directing the respondents to deposit future rent before 15th of each month. Now I may reproduce here said subsection (6) of section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, as under:-- (6) In proceedings under this section on the first date of hearing or as soon as possible after that date and before issues are framed, the Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit all the rent due from him, and also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case, before the fifteenth day of each month the monthly rent due from him. If there is any dispute about the amount of rent due or the rate of rent, the Controller shall determine such amount approximately and direct that the same be deposited by the tenant before a date to be fixed for the purpose. If the tenant makes default in the compliance of such an order, then if he is the petitioner, his application shall be dismissed summarily and if he is the respondent his defence shall be struck off and the landlord put into possession of the property without taking any further proceedings in the case. It will be seen that under the said provision of law, the learned Rent Controller is bound to pass an order under the same on the first date of hearing or as soon as possible after that date and before the issues are framed. He is further bound to issue the following directions:-- (i) The tenant to deposit all the rent due from him; (ii) also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case before 15th day of each month the monthly rent due from him. It will be, thus, seen that only such future monthly rent is to be deposited as is due from the tenant before 15th day of each month.

5. In the present case, the order was passed on 3-4-2004. The direction was for deposit of future monthly rent before the 15th of each month. Now rent for April was to be deposited only when it became due. Needless to state that the rent for the month of April, 2004, would become due on 1-5-2004 and consequently is to be deposited before 15-5-2004. Admittedly, the rent for April, 2004 was deposited on 17-4-2004, i.e. the tenants deposited the rent even before it became due. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that they committed the default in the compliance of the said order of the learned Rent Controller. So far as the said judgment in Khadim Hussain s case being relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it may be of some interest that in the said case also, the allegation was that the rent for the month of April (2000) had not been deposited. Now the allegation was that the rent for the month of April, 2000 was deposited on 27-5-2000. Now, of course, this constituted a default as the rent for the month of April, 2000 was to be deposited before 15-5-2000 but was admittedly deposited on 27-5-2000. No other point has been urged. All the S.A.Os. dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-358/L Appeals dismissed.