1996 PLP 1163 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 28th January, 1996. The facts briefly stated are that the respondent/landlord filed eviction application before the Rent Controller, Rawalpindi under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance against the writ petitioner/tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent and also that he bona fidely required the house for his personal use. The writ petitioner/tenant resisted the application on various grounds including the ground denying the monthly rent of Rs.2,200 as alleged by the respondent/landlord and asserted that only Rs.1,500 were actually fixed between the parties.

2. The learned Rent Controller in exercise of his powers under sub‑section (61 of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance fixed the tentative rent at Rs.2,000 vide his order dated 13‑11‑1991 and directed the writ petitioner/tenant to deposit the rent at this rate during the pendency of the eviction application.

3. In view of the propositions of fact and law ascertained from the pleadings of the parties, the learned Rent Controller framed the following issues: ‑‑ (1) What is the actual rate of rent? OPP Parties. (2) Whether the respondent has committed default in the payment of rent from 1‑6‑1990? OPP (3) Whether the petitioner requires the premises in good faith for his bona fide personal use and occupation? OPP (4) What is the effect of the amount of Rs.4,182 admitted by the petitioner in para. No.2 of the application? OPP (5) Relief.

4. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Rent Controller decided issue No. l in favour of the respondent/landlord by holding that the actual rate of rent fixed and settled between the parties was Rs.2,

200. As regards the other issue pertaining to requirement of the premises for bona fide personal use, the learned Rent Controller disbelieving the evidence of the respondent/tenant produced in support of his contention dismissed the application vide order dated 21‑12‑1993.

5. The respondent/tenant assailed the order dated 21‑12‑1993 dismissing the eviction application, in appeal filed in the Court of District Judge, Rawalpindi which was later assigned to Additional District Judge for disposal. The appeal was accepted vide impugned order dated 19‑1‑1995 and the writ petitioner/tenant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the house to the landlord within a period of three months of passing of the judgment. The writ petitioner/tenant has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the order dated 19‑1‑1995 passed by the Appellate Court.

6. Arguments heard. At the very outset it was pointed out by the counsel for the respondent/landlord that the writ petitioner since has not come with clean hands, therefore, the writ petition merits dismissal. Reason being this that Rs.2,200 were finally fixed by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 21‑12‑1993 and the writ petitioner did not assail the findings of the learned Rent Controller by preferring any appeal against that and as such the findings as regards the fixation of monthly rent as Rs.2,200 had attained finality and the petitioner was bound to pay the rent accordingly but he had failed to pay till today. When the situation was confronted to the writ petitioner, he stated that he had been depositing rent at the rate of Rs.2,000 per month and not Rs.2,200 since 13‑I1‑1991. Admittedly, he had committed deliberate default by paying Rs.200 less each month to what was actually fixed by the learned Rent Controller. So much so, this Court also had directed the writ petitioner vide order dated 24‑4‑1995 to continue depositing the amount of rent before the 15th of every month. Despite of all that the writ petitioner did not bother to show clean hands before seeking equitable discretionary relief by invocation of writ jurisdiction. Non‑depositing of full rent as determined by the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, during the pendency of the Constitutional petition, certainly constitutes default on the part of petitioner/tenant and he is as such not entitled to indulgence of Court particularly in case of writ jurisdiction. On this ground alone, the writ petition merits dismissal. Reliance is placed on PLD 1987 Lah. 407, 1988 MLD 2688 and 1992 CLC 1006.

7. Even on merits, the writ petitioner has no case. 1991 CLC Note 131 at p.108 is referred to advantage whereby it was held that under Article 199 of the Constitution, writ petition against the eviction passed by Additional District Judge in reversal of order of Rent Controller who dismissed eviction application did not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. In the instant case, the statement of respondent/landlord provides all details justifying his bona fide requirement of personal need which stands unrebutted as the writ petitioner had failed to shake the credibility of the claim in cross‑examination. Moreover, the findings of the learned Additional District Judge on point of the fact are ‑not lightly to be ignored in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The findings of the first Appellate Court are not open to interference as neither any jurisdictional defect nor any misreading or non‑reading of evidence is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress on the point that children of the petitioner are studying in outstanding institution which situates near the house in dispute and there is also dearth of good houses available for rent in the locality and in case of ejectment the writ petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss and the education of his children shall be disturbed. It may be observed that it is not the hardship or inconvenience likely to be faced by the tenant in case of his ejectment to be taken into consideration by the Court but contrary to that it is the bona fide requirement of the landlord/applicant alone, under the law, that matters. The hardship and inconvenience of the tenant is immaterial for the purposes of decision on ejectment petition filed under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance.

8. The writ petition has, therefore, no force and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs and the writ petitioner/tenant is directed to hand over the vacant possession of the house to the respondent/landlord within a period of two months commencing from today, failing which the landlord shall be entitled to initiate execution proceedings in the Court of Rent Controller, Rawalpindi. A.A./M‑43/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ?????????? Petition dismissed.