1996SCMR349 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 12th November, 1995. MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of an application filed by the respondent, Syed Atique Yousaf Bokhari, against the petitioner, Imam‑ud‑Din, for his eviction from a shop, in the Multan Cannt. area, inter alia, on the ground of default. The Rent Controller, Multan Cantt., to whom the application was made, directed the respondent (tenant) to deposit arrears of rent, amounting to Rs.800, by 2nd April, 1987, and also continue depositing future rent for each month at the rate of Rs.100, per mensem, before the 5th of the following month. The respondent could not demonstrate before the learned Rent Controller that he had complied with the above direction of the learned Rent Controller. On 8th June, 1989, therefore, the learned Rent Controller stuck off the defence and ordered his eviction.

2. The respondent went in‑ appeal before the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, against the order of his eviction but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge thereof. He has, therefore, 'made this petition for leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers.

3. It was submitted by Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh,`learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner did deposit the arrears of rent, amounting to Rs.800, before the stipulated date, namely, 2nd April, 1987; but, unfortunately, could not produce the relevant documents to establish its deposit. It was maintained by the learned counsel that if the learned Rent Controller had shown some more indulgence to the petitioner, he would have satisfied him that he had done the needful, in time but as he was not kind enough to do so, it was assumed that he had not complied with his order, with the result that he was directed to vacate the disputed premises.

4. Mr. Shahid Hussain Qadri, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent, was present when the above submissions were made by Mian Saeed‑ur?Rehman Farrukh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. We, therefore, asked Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, Advocate to produce bank receipt with a view to substantiating his plea.

5. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner produced a writing showing that the amount of Rs.800 was deposited in the National Bank of Pakistan, Multan Cantonment Branch, on 28th March, 1987, in Account No. 7871, in the name of the learned Rent Controller. Thus, prima facie, the above document supports the, contention raised by learned counsel of the petitioner that the arrears of rent *had been deposited by the petitioner before the stipulated date. 6.???????? In view of the position which emerged before us, we converted this petition into an appeal and heard learned counsel for the parties thereon.

7. We feel that if the petitioner had complied with the direction of the learned Rent Controller with regard to the deposit of rent, he should not suffer merely of the reason that he had been a bit slack in placing the necessary documents on the record. In the interest of justice, therefore, we would like the matter to be considered afresh by the learned Rent Controller keeping in view the document referred to above and other evidence to be produced before him in the matter.

8. Accordingly, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the learned Rent Controller directing eviction of the petitioner and remand the ejectment application to the learned Rent Controller. Now, the learned Rent Controller shall allow reasonable opportunity to the parties to show whether or not the petitioner had complied with the order of the learned Rent Controller with regard to the deposit of arrears of rent and future rent and then proceed further with the case in accordance with law.

9. Looking at the peculiar circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. A.A./I‑309/S? Case remanded.