1992 PLP 1531 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 12th October, 1991. This judgment shall dispose of W.P. Nos. 2571, 2572, 2573 of 1991 in which same question fall for determination.

2. The petitioners in all these petitions are in possession of their respective shops out of property bearing No.B‑111‑2S‑27 Bazar Balman Gunj, Khajoor Mandi, Gujranwala as tenants under respondent No.l who filed separate applications for ejectment against them seeking their eviction from the shops in question on the grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting and personal use. During the course of hearing, the petitioners were directed to deposit the rent in Court in terms of section 13 (6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. All these ejectment petitions were dismissed by the Rent Controller on 12th May, 1990.

3. Aggrieved by these orders respondent No.l preferred three appeals in the District Court. During the. course of hearing of those appeals it was pointed out by respondent No.l that the order of deposit of rent had not been complied with by the petitioners inasmuch as although they had deposited the rent with the Rent Controller but the deposit was not in favour of the landlord/respondent No.l. This plea prevailed with the Additional District Judge who proceeded to strike off the defence of the petitioners and directed their eviction from the property in question.

4. Mr. Hamid Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that admittedly the petitioners had deposited the rent in question with the Rent Controller and the mere fact that in the challans the name of the landlord was not mentioned does not in any manner render the deposit as invalid. The learned counsel has relied upon Major (Retd.) A.S.K. Samad v. Lt.‑Col. (Retd.) Hussain and another (1987 SCMR 1013).

5. Mr. Iqbal Haider Zaidi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.l has on the other hand contended that a tenant is required under the law to deposit rent in favour of the landlord and if he fails to do so the deposit/tender of rent cannot be deemed to be valid. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel on a judgment by my learned brother Zia Mahmood Mirza, J. in Muhammad Siddiq v. Abbas Ahmed and others in W.P. No.225 of 1988.

6. There is no dispute as regards the facts of 6iis case. The rent for the months of October to December, 1987 April to June, 1988, January to March, 1989 and July to September, 1989 was deposited by the tenant with the Rent Controller within the due date but the name of the person in whose favour the deposit was being made was not mentioned. The only question which falls for consideration is at to whether such a deposit can be considered as due compliance of the order of deposit of rent passed by this Court. The question stands answered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haji Allah Ditta v. Mst. Shahzadi Bilqis and another (1980 SCMR 48) and two judgments of this Court namely Malik Manzoor Ahmed v. Sardar Muhammad (1991 CLC 877) and Muhammad Siddiq v. Abbas Ahmed and others W.P. No. 225 of 1988 decided on 20th February, 1988. The relevant observations appearing in the first cited case in Malik Manzoor Ahmed v. Sardar Muhammad are reproduced as under:‑ "In the instant case, the petitioner has not stated the name of the landlord and the mere fact that he gave the title of the parties in the Column No.3 of the challan would not cure the defect. Reference may be made to Haji Allah Ditta v. Mst. Shahzadi Bilqts and another (1980 SCMR 48), wherein it was held that omission to mention the name of person on whose behalf the rent was being offered appears to be deliberate and the deposit of the amount by the payment in treasury cannot be regarded as lawful tender of the rent." In the second case the observation of Supreme Court of Pakistan in an unreported case namely Allah Ditta v. Mst. Shahzadi Bilqis and another (C.P.S.L.A. No. 303/1979) 1980 SCMR 41 which are relevant to the present controversy were reproduced which are as under:‑ "The learned counsel for the petitioner argued, firstly that he had not defaulted in payment of rent; that he had been depositing the rent in the treasury and the only fault found with the same by the learned Rent Controller was that the name of respondent landladies was not mentioned in the challan forms. The counsel attempted to argue that the petitioner had not mentioned the names of the landladies because the relevant form did not contain any column for that purpose. We have examined the challan form and find that this contention is not correct. The omission to mention the names of the persons on whose behalf the rent was being deposited appears to be deliberate and, therefore, the deposit of the money by the petitioner in the treasury cannot be regarded as lawful tender of the rent. The learned Courts below were, therefore, justified in holding that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to distinguish the aforesaid authorities on the ground that in the present case the landlord had, withdrawn the rent. The distinction if I may say so with respect to the learned counsel is illusory for it is well‑settled that mere withdrawal of rent does not amount to waiver of the right of landlord to apply for the striking off the defence. As a result of what has been stated above all these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioners are allowed four months time to vacate the premises: A.A./S‑108/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismissed.