1983 PLP 2428 (CLC)

The learned Rent Contr0fer disposed of application of the appellant as well as respondent by his order dated 16th May, 1978 by which he rejected appellant's application for rectification and allowed respondent's applica tion under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for the reasons given in the said order.

3. The appellant abovenamed, filed rent appeal No. 318 of 1978 before the IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi, against-the abovemen tioned order dated 16th May, 1978 of the learned Rent Controller and the said appeal was dismissed by the learned- IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi, by his order dated 24th October, 1978 for the reasons given in the said order. The appellant abovenamed, being aggrieved by the abovementioned orders pf the learned Rent Controller and the IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi, respectively has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the above facts and on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of appeal submitted before me as under: (1) That the orders of the learned Rent Controller and the judgment of the first Appellate Court are based- on misreading and misinter pretation of facts and as such both the learned Lower Courts have crossly erred in arriving at a wrong conclusion in respect of default. (2) That both the learned lower Courts have exercised their discretion illegally and with material irregularity in disposing of appellant's and respondent's respective applications. (3) That both the learned lower Courts have wrongly held that there was a default in payment of rent within the meaning of section 1.3 (6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when the entire amount of the rent was paid by the appellant in Miscel laneous rent case. (4) That tentative rent order dated 24th March, 1977 passed by the learned Rent Controller is defective and of no legal consequence and as such appellants defence could not have been struck off on the basis of said order. (5) That default in compliance with the order dated 24th March, 1977 was not wilful and deliberate, as advocate for the appellant had already moved an application for rectification of the said order, which was pending long before the filing of the respondent's applica tion under section (3 (6) of the Ordinance and was only disposed of by common order, on 16th May, 1978. In view of this, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the concurrent findings of both the learned Lower Courts can be set aside by this Court on the basis of law laid down in 1973 S C M R 606. 5-6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent sub mitted that the appellant at least became aware of the tentative rent order dated 24th March, 1977, when he moved an. application for rectification of the said order and as such he was legally bound to comply with the said order, .at least in respect of future rents, which fell due from 1st April, 1977. Since the appellant even failed to comply with the tentative rent order in respect of future rents, due from 1st April, 1977, the concurrent findings of both the learned Lower Courts cannot be interfered with in the Second Appeal in view of the, la,v laid down :r the cases reported : s P L D 1980 Lah. 610 ; P L D 1952 S C 530 and I' L D 1969 S C 424.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the 1earned counsel and have gone through the record and proceedings of both the learned Lower Courts as well as their respective orders and reasoning for arriving at their respective findings and have taken into consideration the authorities cited by both the learned counsel for the parties

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant urged before me was that since application dated 2nd April, 1977 for rectification of the tentative rent order dated 24th March. 1977 was moved on behalf Of the appellant, the appellant was not bound to comply with the said order pending disposal of his application for rectification. I see no force in this argument, as the learned Rent Controller has rightly stated, that on 4th March, 1977 neither the appellant nor his Advocate were present nor ;guy application for adjournment was moved and as such on the basis of no rent account filed by the appellant, he was fully justified in passing the mutative rent order in question. Further the learned Rent Controller in iris reasons for allowing respondent's application under section 13 (6) of tie West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance; 1959 has stated that are appellant's own admission, he became aware of this tentative rent order, tit least on 2nd April, 1977 and as such he ought to have complied with the said order, at least in respect of future rents which became due from April, 1977. However, the appellant admittedly committed default in compliance with a tentative rent order dated. 24th March, 1977 even in respect of future rents, as he deposited rents, for the month of April, 1977 on 4th June, 1977, instead of on or before 15th May, 1977, and similarly deposited rent for the months of October and November, 1977 on 11th January, 1978 instead of on or before 15th November and 15th December, 1377 and rent in respect of December, 1977, he deposited on 15th February, 1978 instead of on or before 15th January, 1978, that too in a Miscel laneous Rent Application No. 4945/76 instead of rent case No. 3693/76 in which the tentative rent order for deposit was passed. The learned Rent Controller in his order stated, that even if the payments made in Miscel laneous Rent Application No. 4945/76 are treated as payments in rent case No. 1693/ 76, still the appellant has committed a clear default in respect of the payments of the rents for the months of April, October, November and December, 1977, for which default, no explanation at -all has been given by the appellant. The learned District Judge, Karachi, also agreed with this finding of fact of the learned Rent Controller, for C the cogent reasons given by him in his judgment dated 24th October, 1978 and I see no reason to interfere with this concurrent findings of both the learned Lower Courts, which are based on cogent reasons as given is their respective orders. 9.It is true that this Court can on the basis of the law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in 1973 S C M R 606, set aside concurrent findings of both the learned Lower Courts, provided such findings are perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and are not warranted by taw. In my opinion, the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any such defect in these concurrent findings of both the learned lower Courts and as such this authority does not support the appellant's contention. On the contrary, the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, which are. herein abovementioned, fully support the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent, that this Court cannot, in view of the facts of this case, interfere with the concurrent find ings of both the learned lower Courts.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant did not urge or point out anything from the impugned orders in support of his contentions mentioned in para. 4(2), (3) and (4) and did not press any other point before me.

11. In view of my above conclusions, I see no force in the above appeal, which is dismissed with no orders as to costs. However, 1 allow appellant four months time from today, to vacate the premises in his occu pation and hand over vacant possession thereof to the respondent and vacate the stay orders passed in the above appeal- K.M.A. Appeal dismissed.