1988 PLP 3 (CLC)

Briefly stated, the necessary facts are that the suit property was transferred by the Settlement Department to respondent No. 1 in conjunction with 'Inam Hassan Khan and Yaqub Alam on 24‑8‑1960, which was mutually partitioned by the transferees. At that time, the portion which fell to the share of respondent No. 1 was in possession of Ata Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, against whom respondent No. 1 filed an ejectment petition which was allowed vide order dated 20‑11‑1967, by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore. However, this ejectment order was not executed. Upon the demise of Ata Khan, respondent No. 1 sought eviction of the petitioners on the ground of personal need and damage to the property, wherein petitioners denied relationship of landlord and tenant; and accordingly the following issue was framed: "Whether relationship of landlord or tenant exist between the parties?" The learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, inter alia, relying upon the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Permanent Transfer Deed and the oral testimony of the witnesses in addition to the ejectment order previously having been passed against predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, decided the issue against the petitioners and passed the ejectment order. This was challenged in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 135/86, which was admitted by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide order dated 7‑12‑1986 and execution of the impugned order and decree was suspended subject to the petitioners depositing arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.300 p.m. on or before the next date of hearing Le. 7‑1‑1987. It was further directed that the monthly rent should be deposited before 15th of each succeeding month. The petitioners having got execution of the impugned order suspended, instead of complying with the order on 3‑1‑1987 moved an application seeking waiver of the condition as to payment of rent which was disallowed; consequently, the appeal was dismissed on 21‑9‑1987 under section 15(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, "1959; hence the present petition. It is contended that the impugned order is without lawful authority because the appellate Court could only pass order under section 15(5) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 .(hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) in cases where the trial Court has previously exercised powers under section 13(6) of the' Ordinance and not otherwise. There is no force in.the submission', made by the learned counsel. This petition seems to be motivated out' of extraneous consideration designed to perpetuate occupation of the premises for indefinite period. Section 15(5) ibid, text of which for the convenience of reference is set out‑herein below:‑‑ "15 . ........................................................ (5) The appellate authority admitting an appeal for hearing shall have the same powers to direct the tenant to deposit the rent as are vested in the Controller under the Ordinance and, if the tenant makes default in compliance with such an order, then, if he is the appellant, his appeal shall be dismissed summarily and, if he is the respondent; his defiance shall be struck off." Clearly demonstrates the intention of the framers of this piece of legislation. It is a specie of legislation by reference, whereby provisions of section 13(6) of the Ordinance have been imported, enjoining upon the appellate authority powers to issue direction to the tenant for deposit of rent in Court, pending decision of the appeal. The submission of the learned counsel if accepted, would render section 15(5) subservient and contingent upon exercise of power by the Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, which would lead to absurdity. If in a given case, Rent Controller does not pass any order under section 13(6) then by virtue of the arguments, appellate Court automatically stands divested of its powers under section 15(5), which represents inherent illogically of the arguments. Such a notion cannot be attributed to the legislature. The object of the law‑giver is very clear, vie. as long as the appeal is pending, the tenant should be obliged to pay the rent to the landlord, both arrears, if any, as well as the future rent subject to the final adjudication of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, the. petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. A . A . / B‑39 / L Petition dismissed.