1989 PLP 967 (CLC)

‑‑S.13(6)‑‑Arrears of rent‑‑Direction under S.13(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for deposit of rent, held, could be given only in respect of rent which could be recoverable under law and not beyond that. Ismail Padhiar for Appellant. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the appellant had deposited rent on 1‑4‑1981, while the application for ejectment was filed on 9‑1‑1984. That the default if any before January, 1981 was time‑barred and, therefore, the same could not be made a ground for ejectment. In this connection he has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in N L R (sic) Civil page

392. He has further contended that the learned Rent Controller had failed to consider the payment of Rs.1,200 paid to the appellant towards rent. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. In this case the allegation of the respondent was that the appellant had failed to pay rent from 1‑1‑1977 and as such he was a defaulter. The case of the appellant was that he was not the tenant of appellant and that he had been paying rent under bona fide mistake for which no receipts were issued. It was further stated in his written statement that later on he did not know the address of the landlord and, therefore, rent could not be paid. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel and the decision relied upon by him. It has been proved by the respondent that the appellant had failed to pay him rent from 1‑1‑1977. Even with regard to deposit of rent by appellant from 1‑4‑1981, neither any receipt was produced before the Rent Controller nor any body was examined from the office of the Controller to prove that the rent was being deposited from 1‑4‑1981. Even the appellant had dishonestly and male fide denied' the relationship of landlord and tenant but when he was confronted with the receipts P‑2 to P‑4, he admitted that these receipts were issued in his favour. The third ground taken in the written statement was that the address of the respondent was not known and, therefore, the rent could not be paid. According to the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance the method of payment of rent had been provided, and in case the address of the respondent was not known to the appellant, he could deposit the same in the Court but that was also not done. Since the appellant was admittedly a defaulter and had dishonestly denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller was right in ordering his ejectment. As far as the decision relied upon by the learned counsel was, concerned, there is no cavil with the proposition that the direction under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance for deposit of arrears of rent can be given only in respect of the rent which could be recoverable under the law and not beyond that. In the case of Mst. Fatima v. Abdul Razzak 1988 S C M 1449, it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that: "Where tenant denied relationship of landlord and Tenant by taking false and dishonest plea, the tenant was liable to be ejected. " In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered vie that the order of the learned Rent Controller does not call for interference and the appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine with costs. However, Mr. Ismail Padhiar, Advocate requests that the appellant may be given two months time to enable him to make necessary arrangement for alternative accommodation. In view of this request I allow two months time to the appellant to hand over vacant possession to the respondent subject to the condition that he deposits the rent of these two months' with the Rent Controller. However, if he fails to hand over vacant possession after expiry of two months time it will not be necessary to issue notice to him for executions and writ of ejectment shall be issued straight‑away. M . Y . H . /J‑58/ K Appeal dismissed.