1986 PLP 774 (CLC)

(b) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑‑ ‑‑S. 17(2)‑‑Ejectment for default‑‑Requirement‑‑Ejectment, held, could be ordered from premises on account of default in payment of rent, irrespective of fact whether same was commercial or not. Suleman for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th November, 1985. This appeal is directed against the order of Mr. Maqsood R. Sheikh, Additional Controller of Rents Clifton Cantonment, dated 21‑9‑1985, whereby he struck off defence of the appellant and directed him to put the respondent in vacant possession of Shop No. 1 on Plot No. D‑3/31, Dehli Colony No. 2 Choudhry Khaliquzzaman Road, (Clifton Cantonment), Karachi‑6, under section 17(9) of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963. The respondent is the landlord of the above shop which he had given on rent to the appellant at Rs.110 per month. The respondent had alleged that the appellant is habitual defaulter and has not paid rent from 1st July, 1983 to December, 1983, in spite of repeated demands. Hence he is liable for ejectment. Such ejectment application was filed by the respondent on 11‑1‑1984. The appellant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the rate of rent. He has alleged that after October, 1983, the respondent demanded enhancement of rent and on his refusal to yield to this illegal demand, he stopped collecting the rent. Consequently the appellant deposited the rent in Court in Miscellaneous Rent Case No. 16/1984 (Ledger Folio No. 159/III). The appellant has alleged that he was never a defaulter in payment of rent. The tentative order for deposit of rent was passed by the learned Rent Controller directing the appellant to deposit arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1‑7‑1983 to 31‑10‑1984 at Rs.110 per month, amounting to Rs.1,760 on or before 5th December, 1984. The appellant was given facility of adjustment by transfer of the amount deposited under the above noted miscellaneous application. He was further directed to deposit current rent at Rs.110 per month from the month of November, 1984 before 5th of each following month, till final disposal of the case On 19‑2‑1985, the respondent made this application under section 17(9) of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act alleging that the appellant had failed to comply with the order of deposit of tentative rent for the month of November and December., 1984, and January, 1985. Hence his defence be struck off. The appellant resisted the above application and alleged that he had paid the entire rent in the Court in the above miscellaneous application. The learned Rent Controller after perusal of the Court Ledger Folio referred to above came to the conclusion that the respondent had deposited total of Rs.1,650 as against Rs.1,760 on account of arrears of rent before 5th December, 1984. Hence the payment was short by Rs.110 even so far as the arrears of rent upto 30th November, 1984 was concerned. He did not make any deposit of rent between 17‑10‑1984 and 20‑2‑1985. It would, therefore, appear that he failed to deposit the rent of December, 1984 by 5th January, 1985 and the rent of January, 1985 by 5th February, 1985. The next deposit that he made was on 20‑2‑1985 which amounted to Rs.440. This covered the deposit for the period from December, 1984 to March, 1985 but it was not deposited in time. Thereafter, he made another deposit on 4th June, 1985 amounting to Rs.440 which was in fact for the months of April, 1985, to July, 1985 but it was shown by him wrongly to for the month of May, 1985. Hence it would appear that the learned Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent had defaulted in complying with the order of the deposit of tentative rent on several occasions. It has not been claimed either before the Controller or before this Court that the default in payment of rent was not wilful or was for reasons beyond the control of the appellant. The Controller was, therefore, perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was liable to have his defence struck off on account of the above default. A preliminary objection was also taken by the appellant to the above ejectment application. It was contended that the premises in dispute is a commercial shop. Hence the only ground on which the landlord could ask for ejectment was that of his own personal requirement of the accommodation as mentioned under clause (b) of subsection (4) of section 17 of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act and not on account of default in payment of rent. I fail to understand how such a strange argument has been advanced by the appellant's counsel, in spite of clear provisions of subsection (2) of section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act that the ejectment can be ordered from a premises on account of default in payment of rent, irrespective of the fact whether it is commercial or not. I, therefore, do not find any merit whatsoever in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine. A. A.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.