1985 PLP 48 (CLC)

This first rent appeal arises from non-compliance of tentative rent order, in the result whereof defence of appellant/tenant has been struck off and final order of ejectment has been passed by Rent Control ler, Shandadpur, on 22-12-1979 which is impugned in this appeal.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that respondent/landlord filed ejectment application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on 1-7-1971 claiming ejectment on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The rate of rent is Rs.30. Written statement is filed by the tenant in which relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is denied and the tenant claimed non-service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act. Preliminary issues were framed and decided vide order dated 31-5-79. Subsequently tentative rent order was passed on 30-8-79 in presence of both the parties in which directions were given for deposit of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 4,020 for rent from July 1968 to August 1979 within two months from the date of that order. The arrears had accumulated due to non-payment of rent for 11 years. There was also further direction in the tentative rent order for deposit of monthly rent before 14th of each succeeding month. The tenant did not comply with this tentative rent order in consequence an application was filed by the landlord for striking off defence and subsequently after hearing both the parties the learned Rent Controller has passed order of final eviction against which the appeal has been filed.

3. The contention raised by Mr. Mazhar Ali Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant/tenant is that the tentative rent order was not complied with for the simple reason that the learned Rent Controller had omitted to decide preliminary issue in respect of non-service of notice under A section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act, which is an illegality hence the tentative rent order was not binding upon him. The learned counsel has referred me to the order passed by the Rent Controller on 31-5-79 in which there appears to be a mistake, which is typographical inasmuch as the learned Rent Controller has stated that Mr. Muhammad All Chauhan has conceded that relationship of that of landlord and tenant exists between the parties, which is not factually correct according to the learned counsel who has submitted that on the other hand it was contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. On the other hand Mr. Matloob Hasan Siddiqi has submitted that before the preliminary issues were decided both the parties were examined by the Rent Controller and the tenant in his evidence has categorically admitted that he had surrendered his rights to the landlord and futher admitted execution of surrender deed. Mr. Matloob Basalt has further submitted that in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller deciding preliminary issues reliance was placed on the admission of tenant made by him in his evidence rather than written statement.lt is correct that the learned Rent Controller has stated in the said order that issue with regard to the service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act would be decided later on at the time when the issue with regard to default was taken up for consideration. In this context Mr. Siddiqi has submitted that in any case after the repeal of the Displaced Persons Act on 1-7-74 service of notice under section 30 of the D.P.Act was not necessary in view of section 6 of the General Clauses Act. In support of this proposition reliance is placed by the learned counsel on P L D 1983 Lah. 27, 1984 C L C 911 and the latest decision reported in P L D 1984 Kar.

135. In the circumstances I hold that service of notice under section 30 of the D.P.Act was not necessary.

4. Another fact which has impressed me is that at the time when preliminary issues were decided vide order of Rent Controller mentioned above, tenant was represented by his counsel who was heard and in whose presence the said order was passed. If the tenant really had any girevance against this order, he would have raised hue and cry and he could have filed some application before the Rent Controller for review on the ground that there was mistake in the order. He did not do so and thereafter tentative rent order was passed on 30-8-79, which was after three months of the order passed on preliminary issues, still no objection was raised by the tenant before the Rent Controller and defect in the order dated 31-5-79 was not brought to the notice of the Rent Controller. In the circumstances it was not open to the tenant to have simply refused point blank to comply with tentative rent order which was tentative in nature. For the facts and reasons stated above I am of the view that no justification has been shown by the tenant for non-compliance of the tentative rent order hence order of ejectment passed in consequence thereof is hereby maintained and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is directed to give vacant possession of the disputed premises to the landlord within two months from today. K.M.A. Appeal dismissed.