P L D 1996 Lahore 308 (PLP)

This second appeal under section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 calls in question order dated 30‑11‑1992 of the Rent Controller, Sialkot directing the eviction of the appellant from shops bearing Nos.7 and 8, Mohallah Shaboura Uggoki Road, Sialkot which was affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot on 24.5.1993.

2. On 22‑7‑1992, an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was moved by the respondent against the appellant seeking his eviction from the shops in dispute on the ground of default. It was alleged that though by virtue of promulgation of Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 the rent stood enhanced by 20 per cent. with effect from July, 1990, the appellant was depositing rent at the old rate of Rs.505 per month with the Rent Controller and had as such become a defaulter.

3. During the pendency of the ejectment petition another application was moved by the respondent on 29‑1‑1992 in which he claimed that by virtue of amending Ordinance the rent stood increased with effect from July, 1989.

4. In the written reply filed by the appellant, the enhancement in the rate of rent was not disputed. It was, however, pleaded that the appellant was never called upon by the respondent to pay rent at the enhanced rate by serving a notice and as such he was not a defaulter. It was also pleaded that the appellant on coming to know of the factum of increase in the rate of rent had started depositing rent at the enhanced rate with the Rent Controller. issues:‑‑

5. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following (1) Whether respondent has not paid the increased 20 per cent. rent from first July, 1990 till institution of the petition and is liable to be ejected on basis of default in payment of monthly rent? OPA (2) Whether the application is mala fide and is liable to be dismissed? OPR (3) Whether petitioner is estopped by his words and conduct to bring this applications? OPR (4) Whether application is not maintainable at law? OPR (4‑A) Whether respondent has become defaulter in payment of enhanced rent as prayed for in the subsequent application? OPA (4‑B) Whether subsequent application is not maintainable without permission of Court and what is the effect of such application moved by the petitioner? OPR (5) Relief. 6. in support of his case the respondent examined Sh. Muhammad Bashir as A.W.1, who deposed that the appellant was called upon to pay rent at the enhanced rate but he refused to do so. The other evidence produced by the respondent was his own statement as A.W.2. The evidence of appellant, on the other hand, comprises of the statement of R.W. 1, Muhammad Hussain and that of respondent himself as R.W.2.

7. On 30‑11‑1992 the application for ejectment was allowed by the Rent Controller who under issues Nos. I and 4‑A found that as the law applicable provided for automatic increase in rent and the appellant by continuing to deposit the rent at the old rate had committed a default and was, therefore, liable to be ejected. The plea that the appellant was not aware of his liability to pay the additional rent was repelled by observing that the ignorance of law was no excuse. These findings were affirmed in appeal by the Additional District Judge Sialkot on 24‑5‑1993.

8. In support of this appeal Mr. Farooq Hassan Naqvi, Advocate has vehemently argued that it was essential for the landlord/respondent to have made a demand for the payment of enhanced rent in accordance with section 5‑A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as amended by Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance, 1991 and in the absence of any such demand or notice, the appellant could not be held to be defaulter. It was further argued by the learned counsel that, in any event, the default was not wilful and as such the discretion vesting in the Rent Controller should not have been exercised in favour of the landlord.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has, however, emphasised that section 5‑A of the Ordinance provided for automatic increase in the rent and the concept of service of any notice by the landloro requiring him to pay rent at the revised rate was alien to law. The learned counsel maintained that once default was found to be committed, the discretion could not have been exercised in favour of the tenant in the absence of any proof that default was occasioned by a reason beyond his control.

10. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, a reference to section 5‑A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 which was introduced by Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1991 is necessary which reads as under:‑‑ "5‑A. Increase of rent of non‑residential buildinps. ‑‑‑ (1) The rent of a non‑ residential building shall stand automatically increased at the end of (2) (3) (4) every three years of its tenancy by twenty‑five per cent. of the rent already being paid by the tenant. 1. on its plain reading section 5‑A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 provides for automatic increase in the rent and it becomes the A obligation of the tenant to pay the rent at the revised rate. The use of word .automatic" clearly negates the contention that service of notice by the landlord is necessary in order to avail of the benefit of section 5‑A of Ordinance. In Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Volume 4‑A, "automatic" has been defined as "self‑acting", "without option or choice" to either party. Similarly in The New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, Ist Edition at page 96, one of the meanings given to the word "automatic" is "without intervention". It thus becomes clear that on the expiry of the period mentioned in section 5‑A of the Ordinance, rent ipso facto stands enhanced and the tenant becomes obliged to pay the same to the landlord. This is unlike sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, under which the increase in the rate of rent is dependent upon proof of certain facts and order of the Rent Controller.

12. The only defence taken up by the appellant for not paying the rent at the revised rate was that he was not aware of the amendment in the law. But this plea hardly deserves any consideration in view of the maxim that ignorance of law is no excuse. In Broom's Legal Maxims, 10th Edition at page 169 the maxim has been stated in the following words: ‑‑ "Ignorantia juris non excusat: Ignorance of the law does not excuse. The appellant cannot, therefore, successfully contend that he should be considered to be a defaulter in view of his lack of knowledge of the amendment in law.

13. It is also to be noticed that where Legislature intended that the default on the part of the tenant is dependant upon service of a notice by the landlord, it has been so provided in the law like section 13‑A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.

14. Coming now to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the circumstances of the case the discretion should not have been exercised by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge in favour of the landlord. True enough, the power to direct eviction of a tenant under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, due to default is within the discretion of the Rent Controller, but non‑payment of rent can only be condoned if the tenant brings on record the circumstances showing that he has all along been ready and willing to discharge his obligation but was prevented for doing so by some sufficient cause. In the present case the only excuse put forward for not paying the rent at the enhanced rate was, ignorance of law which, as already observed, cannot be considered as a sufficient justification. It is the obligation of the tenant to pay rent at the due rate to the landlord and it is not for the latter to run after the tenant for doing so. The Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 protects only those tenants who duly discharged their obligations imposed by law. In Mrs. Alima Ahmad v. Amir Ali PLD 1984 SC 32 are instructive and may be reproduced with advantage:‑‑ "The learned Judge was, with utmost respect, under a mis‑apprehension that it was a case of exercise of discretion by Controller which was proper one and the first Appellate Court interfered in the exercise of that discretion and that such interference was unjustified, and hence merited interference in second appeal. Further, from the supposed hardship of the law, the learned Judge should not have superimposed a procedure of two notices, extraneous to the statute whose provisions were to be interpreted and applied. The Ordinance protects the tenants against eviction and enhancement of rent, thereby curtailing the plenary powers of the landlord to deal with his property and tenant thereof. If promptness in payment of rent, with option to the tenant to deposit it with the Rent Controller, is a condition precedent for enjoying such protections it cannot be relaxed or diluted on grounds of economic well being, fairness or in the name of justice ... ... ....

15. Mr. Farooq Hassan Naqvi, learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that even the respondent/landlord was not sure as to the rate to which the enhancement of rent had taken place and for what period inasmuch as in the petition for ejectment increase of rent was stated to be 20% with effect from July, 1990 while in the application dated 29‑1‑1992 it was claimed that the rent stood enhanced by 20% with effect from July, 1989 though in law increase in rent was by 25 %.

16. This plea of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. It might have had some force if the appellant had been depositing rent with increase of 20% and not where the appellant had failed to deposit the enhanced amount of rent at all. For all these reasons this appeal is found to be without any force. It is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.A.[M‑2714/L Appeal dismissed.