1968 SCMR 298 (PLP)

HAMOODUR RAINAN, J.-The petitioner, who was a tenant of the respondent in respect of a house on Kacha Ravi Road, Lahore, was sued for ejectment before the Rent Controller, Lahore. In the suit on the 9th of January 1963, the Rent Controller made an order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, directing the petitioner to deposit the future rent at the rate of Rs, 100 per month by the 4th of each succeeding month. The petitioner did not move against this order but deposited the rent for the month of February 1963 on the 8th of March 1963, rent for March 1963, on the 6th of April 1963, rent for May 1963, on the 7th of June 1963, and rent for June 1963, on the 15th of July 1963. On account of this default the Rent Controller struck off his defence on the 29th of January 1964, and ordered him to deliver possession to the landlord after one month from that date. The petitioner went up in appeal against this order contending that the Rent Controller was wrong in holding that there was any default on his part. According to him, the order directing the deposit of rent by the 4th of each succeeding month was illegal and opposed to the provisions of subsection (6) of section 13 of the said Ordinance. This Ordinance, it is contended, authorised the Rent Controller to direct a tenant'whose ejectment is sought "to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case, before the 5th day of each month, the monthly rent due from him." The monthly rem dne, it is argued, means the rent due according to the month of the tenancy and, as such, if a tenancy does not com mence on the 1st of the month the 5th day of the month on which the rent will become due will be the 5th day following the date of the commencement of the tenancy. This contention was found untenable by the learned Additional District Judge as also by the High Court of West Pakistan in second appeal and in Letters Patent Appeal. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition has contended that unless and until the month of the tenancy is determined the period prescribed by the Ordinance for the deposit of rent cannot be fixed. In suppo t of his contention that the tenancy in his case commenced from the 6th of the month he has produced only one receipt, which shows that advance rent for the "calendar month of January", 1958, was paid on the 6th of January 1958. This receipt, according to the High Court, was not by itself sufficient to support the case of the petitioner that his tenancy commenced from the 6th of the month even on facts. The High Court has also held that the interpretation sought to be put upon the words of subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance by the petitioner is untenable. We are in agreement with this view of the High Court, for, this section clearly says thatiA the monthly rent due shall be deposited before the 5th day of each month. This clearly means the 5th day of each calendar month and not the 5th day from the date of commencement of the monthly tenancy. In any event, if the petitioner's case was genuine that his tenancy commenced from the 6th of the month then he should have moved against the order of the Rent Controller directing the deposit. He cannot now after having clearly de faulted in carrying out the direction of the Rent Controller complain that his interpretation was wrong or that his order was illegal. This petition is, in our view, without substance and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.