1984Q6 (PLP)

This first appeal is directed against the orders of the learned Rent Controller (Miss Tahira Baqri) passed on 24‑11‑1982 whereby the defence of the appellant (tenant) was struck off and was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the house bearing No. 8‑16/91 A & B McConghy Road, Quetta to the respondent and arise in the following circumstances

2. That an eviction application was filed on 4th May, 1982, by respon dent Haji Abdul Hameed against the appellant alleging that the house was obtained on rent by Abdul Rehman, Assistant Engineer (Training) Divisional Telecom Training. Centre on behalf of the President of Pakistan and a rent deed was executed in this behalf and it was claimed in the application that the rent in respect of the house mentioned above was not paid with effect from 1st October, 1981, to 30th April, 1982. The written statement was filed on 29th July, 1982, wherein. the relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied. The averments regarding default was however, denied. The learned Controller on the same day passed an order that since the respondent (the appellant before me) had accepted the tenancy, and there was no dispute about the rate of the rent he was Directed to deposit the rent due with effect from 1 st October, 1981 to June, 982 at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per month. It was further ordered that the rent fop July be deposited before 15th day of September, 1982, and thereafter the rent falling due each month he deposited before the 15th of net month regularly till the final decision 'of the case. The case was fixed for 30‑8‑82 when an application was made by the landlord complain ing therein that the rent as ordered by the Court has not been paid and it was prayed that the defence of the tenant be struck off. This application was contested by the appellant and it was asserted that the direction under section 1.3(6) as contained in the order dated 29‑7‑1982 was not heard by him, but‑ the fact remains that on 30‑8‑82 when the appellant appeared before the Rent Controller an allegation was made that he had not complied with the directions of the Rent Controller in respect of the deposit of rent. During the period the application for striking off the defence was being contested, the rent was paid on 19th October, 198?, with no application for condonation of any delay or showing cause for the delay. The learned Controller while deciding the application came to a positive finding of fact that .tier order under section 13(6) has not been complied with and the tenant's plea about not having beard the Court's order was not tenable. The defence was accordingly struck off and the tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the house within a month. Against this order dated 24th November, 1982, this appeal has been filed.

3. Mr. Moquim Ansari, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended before me that the non‑compliance of the order passed under section 13(6) was not intentional, because Abdul Rehman who appeared for the appellant could not hear the order besides it was submitted that the Government should have been given sufficient time for arranging defence which in the normal course is up to three months. I do not find any substance in the above contention. The representative of the Government who appeared before the Controller alongwith the written statement was presumed to under stand the proceedings, it was known to him that the eviction application has been filed and was being proceeded with, it was his duty to know as to what step in the proceedings is to take place on the next date of hearing. The learned Controller, therefore, has rightly held that the plea of not hearing the order is untenable. Even if for the sake of arguments it is considered that the tenant was not or could not be aware of the previous order at least that order was known to him on 30‑8‑1982 where the application for striking of the defence was made. Admittedly the rent was deposited on 19‑9‑1982 and no explanation has been offered for the delay that has occasion in this behalf. An application was, however, made on 21‑9‑1982 and the reasons shown therein have not been found sufficient by the Rent Controller. It is al fundamental and solitary principle of law and can never be departed that the. Government is not entitled to any preferential treatment as compared to ordinary citizen as there is no discrimination in the State. (1975 S C M R 91 A may be referred). When Government Employs an official to appear in Courts it is their duty to act with due deligence Mr, Moquim Ansari has submitted that the Government was to be informed in the matter and this has caused delay in depositing the rent. With due respect to him such plea has never been accepted by the Courts. Sufficient cause connotes something beyond, the control of party and the delay due to consideration of matter under dispute by various Government Departments has not been condoned. If delay is condoned in such a case, it would amount to putting a premium of the departmental delays and place the Government in a position of advantage. 1f any authority is needed for the view. Pakistan v. Lodhi House (PLD 1968 Lah 923), may be referred. After the careful consideration of the matter I have come to the conclusion that the order of the Rent Controller cannot be assailed on any legal plane. It is a well‑considered order and is neither arbitrary nor perverse.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the framer of the eviction application was not proper cannot be considered at this stage in appeal because that was a matter to be decided after framing the issues. It is significant however that no such objection was taken in the written statement or rejoinder. The premises in question were obtained on rent through a person who had executed the rent deed and he had filed the written statement wherein no such preliminary objection was raised. It was, therefore, not possible for the Rent Controller to attend to any such objection nor there was any occasion for it. The direction of the Rent Controller under section 13(6) was proper as no preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the eviction application was raised nor any objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Controller was made. The default having been established, the law enjoins the making of an order of ejectment and putting the landlord in possession and the provisions cannot be nullified except on ground affecting jurisdiction which is not pointed out in the instant case. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Since the Government has to make arrangements to shift from the premises I allow the appellant four . months to vacate the house. However, in the circumstances of the case I leave the parties to bear their own costs. s. Q. Appeal dismissed.