1981 PLP 538 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 5-11-1978 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the second appeal (S. A. O. No. 396/78) preferred by the petitioner against the order of his ejectment under section 13 (6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. In view of the contentions pressed before us, it is sufficient to say that the petitioner had taken on rent the house of respondent at the rate of Rs. 400 per month which house the landlord sought to get vacated on the grounds raised in the ejectment petition. During the proceedings before the Rent Controller, an order was passed, by him under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance determining tentative rent at Rs. 400 per month and the tenant was directed to deposit the entire rent due from him at that rate and to continue to deposit the future rent before the 15th of each month also at that rate. The tenant deposited rent for two months at Rs. 300 per .month instead and the plea taken was that Rs. 300 per month was the correct rate of rent and even the landlord had withdrawn this amount. The Rent Controller found that his order under section 13(6) had not been complied with and ordered the striking off his defence resulting in his ejectment from his house. This order was maintained on first appeal as also his second appeal in the High Court. Mr. Hakam Qureshi in support of this petition has contended that in case of dispute about the rent due or rate of rent the Rent Controller is to determine the same approximately under section 13(6) but the determination should not be arbitrary. Reliance is placed on the last part of the subsection which lays down. The Controller shall finally determine the amount of rent due from the tenant and direct that same be paid to the landlord, subject to adjustment of the approximate amount deposited by the tenant to contend that because the order under section 13(6) being subject to final determina tion, the petitioner cannot be ejected in the absence of due determination. The argument cannot be accepted because it means that striking off the defence followed by ejectment cannot be ordered even though there is a clear non-compliance with the order under section 13(6). The scheme of the Ordinance appears to be that in the first instance, the Rent Controller must fix the tentative rent on the basis of the material pro duced before him and that the tenant must comply with the said order subject to the adjustment of the amount paid when the rent is finally determined on the decision of the merits of the case as will appear from subsection (6) itself which refers to the determination mentioned in its earlier part as `approximates' while "finally determine" is the expression used in the latter part of the sub section. A determination to this effect will only be possible if the tenant defends the ejectment proceedings. If he fails to comply with the order under section 13(6) he is forbidden to contest the proceedings as his defence is liable to be struck off under the law. However we may observe that when the rate of rent was specified in the rent note, the contention raised by the petitioner that the rent was, in fact, Rs. 300 per month and the amount mentioned in the rent note was incorrect, is patently a dishonest plea to which no importance can be attached. No ground for interference has been made out in the petition which, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.