1994 PLP 789 (MLD)

This was an appeal under section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) from an order of Rent Controller, Cantonment Lahore passed on 15-12-1993 striking off the defence of the appellant for failing to abide by the rent direction made under section 17(8) of the above Act for deposit of rent-arrears and future monthly rent of November, 1993. A residential building in Officers Colony, Lahore Cantt., Lahore belonged to Mst. Raheela Fayyaz respondent. It was let out by her to the appellant at the monthly rental of Rs3,600 per month on 16-10-1990. However, the monthly rental was reduced from Rs3,600 to Rs3,

200. Tenancy was reduced in writing. A photo copy of it was available on the case file of the Rent Controller. The tenancy commenced from 10-10-1990. Ejectment was sought on two-fold grounds of rent-default and bona fide personal need for self-occupation of the house by the respondent landlady. Upon being served in the rent case, appellant submitted his written statement. He denied rent-default and requirement of the house for self-use by the respondent. Rate of monthly rent and the tenancy were not controverted. On 26-10-1993, Rent Controller called upon the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.29,133 as rent-arrears till 24-11-1993 and future monthly rent at the rate of Rs.3,200 per month before 5th of each calendar month. The rent for the month of October, 1993 was payable before 5th of November, 1993. After making the rent-direction, Rent Controller settled issues on merits about allegations of rent-default and bona fide requirement of the house for self-occupation of the respondent and adjourned the rent-case for evidence. On 30-11-1993, respondent submitted an application under section 17(8) of the Rent Act, 1963 for striking off the defence of the tenant appellant for failing to abide with the rent direction inasmuch as neither the arrears of rent were paid in time nor rent for the month of November, 1993 was deposited before 5th of the next month. Despite time and opportunity, appellant failed to submit reply to the application for striking off his defence. On 7-12-1993, the counsel for the appellant requested for adjournment for filing of reply. On his request, the rent case was adjourned to 15-12-1993. On the adjourned date, appellant did not appear but later his counsel joined the hearing and stated that appellant was unwell and he could not maintain contact with him. On the same day, by an order in English, Rent Controller found that the appellant had defaulted in compliance with the rent direction, struck off his defence and ordered his forthwith ejectment from the building in question. The tenant has filed an appeal from this order. Neither the direction for deposit of rent-arrears and future rent at the rate of Rs.3,200 per month made under section 17(8) of Rent Act, 1963 was invalid nor its correctness was questioned at the hearing by the learned counsel for the appellant. Furthermore, default in its compliance with regard to total sum of rent arrears and the rent for the month of November, 1993 in time was also not denied. It was frankly admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that except for the rent of month of October, 1993, appellant was in default as regard rent arrears and the monthly rental of November, 1993. Only point urged was that the Rent Controller failed to afford an opportunity to the appellant for filing of defence statement in reply to the application filed by the other side for striking off his defence. On record, sufficient opportunity was allowed to the appellant to furnish explanation regarding the rent-default attributed to him. He was given time for it but he failed to avail of it usefully. Further adjournment, therefore, was justifiably refused. In course of hearing of this appeal, I inquired from the learned counsel as to what defence the appellant had for failing to comply with the rent-direction in time. He had practically no answer to it. All the same learned counsel insisted for a remand of the rent case to the Rent Controller for deciding of application for striking off the defence afresh after affording' another opportunity to the appellant. After all there must be some basis or ground for a remand of a case. It could not be ordered for a mere fun to appease the appellant. I sent for the original records from the office of Rent Controller also and examined it. I am fully satisfied from it that the appellant gave no explanation for condoning of the default in depositing the rent arrears and future rent in time. His interest was to prolong the life of his stay in the building without payment of rent to the landlady. It was totally an unfair approach. I know, it was a first appeal and ordinarily, it should have been admitted to hearing, but when it was found to be wholly without merit, it served no useful purpose for a further exercise in futility. Upon this view, it was being dismissed in limine. Converse course would have added unnecessary agony for the respondent. Records shall be returned. AA./G-186/L Appeal dismissed.