1979L63 (PLP)

This is a second appeal against an order for the ejectment of the appellant, Muhammad Siddique from a house owned by the respondent, Muhammad Rashid.

2. The order under appeal was made in an application, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, filed by the respondent against the appellant. The Rent Controller, who was seized of the application, directed the appellant, under subsection (6) of section 13 of the said Ordinance, to deposit future rent before 15th of the month next following the one for which it became due, but he deposited rent for the month of October 1977 on 15th November, 1977 although in the terms of the above direction of the learned Rent Controller he should have made the deposit before the 15th of November. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, struck off his defence and ordered his ejectment. He went in appeal before an Additional District Judge, but without success. Hence this second appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had misunderstood the order of the learned Rent Controller regarding the deposit of rent inasmuch as his impression was that the rent for the month of October could be deposited on the 15th of November also. He, therefore, maintained that the default on the part of the appellant was not wilful. I am not impressed by the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Rent Controller had clearly directed that rent for each month shall be deposited before the 15th day of the next month and thus by using the word "before" he left no room for doubt that the 15th day of November was not available to the appellant for depositing rent for the month of October. Also, by now, it is not only, the lawyers but also the tenants who are well aware of the penal provisions of subsection (6) A of section 13 of the aforesaid Ordinance whereunder, if so directed, the future rent is to be deposited before and not on the 15th of the month coming immediately after the month for which the rent becomes due, and failure to do so entails the striking off of the defence and the passing of an order for ejectment of the defaulting tenant. It, therefore, does not appeal to reason that the appellant had, in good faith, believed that rent for the month of October could be deposited on 15th of November as well.

4. After the rent in question had fallen due, the appellant had fourteen days to arrange for its deposit. If he did not deposit the rent during this period and waited for the 15th day to do the needful he did so at his own risk. The ]5th day was, in fact, not available to him for the purpose and, therefore, the rent deposited on that day cannot be treated as in accordance with the direction of the Rent Controller.

5. The default made by the appellant in the compliance of the direction of the learned Rent Controller cannot be overlooked merely for the reason that the deposit made by him was delayed by one day only, because no plausible explanation is forthcoming in regard to his inaction during the fourteen days allowed to him for securing compliance with the aforesaid direction. There is nothing to show that it was due to any reason beyond the control of the appellant that he could not make a timely deposit of the rent in dispute. Therefore, the appellant cannot avoid the legal consequence B of his failure to comply with the direction of the learned Rent Controller. In the case of Muhammad Jan v. Khadim Hussain (1) '1973SCMR243 too a tenant had delayed the deposit of rent for one day but his default was not condoned.

6. I, therefore, see no force in this appeal and dismiss it in limine. The appellant is, however, allowed one month's time to vacate the premises in dispute. s. Q. Appeal dismissed.