PLJ 2022 Quetta 109
Present : ROZI KHAN BARRECH , J.
TORAB KHAN--Appellant
versus
TAHIR KHAN--Respondent
F.A.O. No. 51 of 2021, decided on 31.3.2022.
Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (VI of 1959) --
----Ss. 13, 13(6) & 15 --Eviction application --Relationship of land lord and tenant --Order for deposit of monthly
payment of rent --Appellant was failed to deposit monthly rent --Defence of appellant was struck of --Direction to
vacate shop and delivery of possession--Challenge t o--Order under Section 13(6) of Ordinance 1959 was passed
on 20.03.2021, which was not complied with as such, trial Court struck off defense of appellant and directed him
to vacate rental premises and hand over vacant possession to respondent --The relation ship of land lord and
tenant was admitted by parties --Once Rent Controller directed appellant to deposit of tentative rent before 5th of
every month, then it was mandatory upon appellant to deposit said rent as per direction of Rent Controller
however, he failed to comply with order passed by Rent Controller --Findings rendered by trial Court/Rent are
based on proper appreciation of evidence and material available on record of case and law applicable--Appeal
dismissed. [Pp. 110, 111 & 112] A, B & C
Syed Manz oor Shah , Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Iqbal Ahmed Kasi, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 22.3.2022.
JUDGMENT
The appellant in this appeal has challenged the order dated 17.09.2021 of the Court of Civil Judge/Rent
Controller Sariab Quetta ( “trial Court”) whereby the defense of the appellant was struck off, and the forthwith
eviction was ordered.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that the respondent filed Eviction Application No
04/2020 under Section 13 of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 (hereinafter “the Ordinance
1959”) against the appellant/tenant before the trial Court. The appellant was summoned who appeared and contested
the said application by filing his reply. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.03.2021, the trial Court directed the
appellant to deposit tentative monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/ - before the 5th day of every month. However, the
appellant failed to deposit the said rent for some months on the date fixed by the trial Court. The respondent submitted an application to struck off the defense of the appellant under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance, 1959. After
hearing arguments of the parties, the trial Court vide order dated 17.09.2021 the defense of the appellant, was struck
off under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance, 1959 and directed the appellant to vacate the shop and deliver its possession to the respondents.
Being aggrieved from the impugned order dated 17.09.2021, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
3. I have heard ar guments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with their able
assistance.
4. perusal of the record reveals that after the institution of the application against the appellant, on
20.03.2021, the trial Court in the presence of both the parties, passed the order for payment of monthly rent, by
which the appellant was directed to deposit the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per month before 5th day of
each month. The record further transpires that the order under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance 1959 was passed on
20.03.2021, which was not complied with as such, the trial Court vide order dated 17.09.2021 struck off the defense
of the appellant and. directed him to vacate the rental premises and hand over the vacant possessi on to the
respondent/applicant. The relationship of the land lord and tenant was admitted by the parties.
The appellant placed on record receipts regarding deposit of rent which contains the detail of rent deposited
by him, which shows that in the month of April 2021, he deposited the rent amount of
Rs. 8000/ - on 12th April 2021 instead of Rs. 10,000/ -and deposited the amount of Rs. 20,000/ - for the months of
May and June 2021 on 15th June 2021, meaning thereby that the appellant did not deposit the monthly rent of May
2021 within time. Further, he deposited the rent amount July 2021 on 15th July 2021, and for the month of August
2021 he deposited the rent on 26th August 2021, and lastly, for the month of September 2021, the amount of rent
was deposited on 15th September 2021. The appellant was not complying with the order passed by the trial Court
dated 20.03.2021 despite that it is not disputed that after filing the eviction application, the trial Court in the
presence of the appellant, passed the order dat ed 20.03.2021 by which he was directed to pay the monthly rent
before 5th day of each month.
Section 13(6) of the Ordinance, 1959 is reproduced hereunder:
“Eviction of tenant (6) : In proceeding under this section on the first date of hearing or as soon as possible
after that date and before issues are framed, the Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit all the rent
due from him, and also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case, before the [fifteenth day of
each month] the monthly r ent due from him. If there is any dispute about the amount of rent due or the rate
of rent, the Controller shall determine such amount approximately and direct that same be deposited by the
tenant before a date to be Fixed for the purpose. If the tenant makes default in the compliance of such an
order, then if he is the petitioner, his application shall be dismissed summarily and if he is the respondent
his defence shall be struck off and the land lord put into possession of the property without taking any
further proceedings in the case.
[The Controller shall finally determine the amount of rent due from the tenant and direct that the same may be paid to the landlord, subject to adjustment of the approximate amount deposited by the tenant.].”
The plain, unambiguous and clear wording of the above -mentioned provisions is open only to one interpretation that
whenever the tenant is directed to pay the monthly rent before the 15th day of each month, the tenant must comply with the directions. The penal clause of Section 13(6) has also been provided by the Legislature that in case of
default, not only his defense shall be struck off, but possession of the rented premises shall also be ordered to be
taken from him.
The provisions of Section 13(6) of the Or dinance ibid are mandatory. Once the learned Rent Controller
directed the appellant to deposit of tentative rent before the 5th of every month, then it was mandatory upon the
appellant to deposit the said rent as per the direction of the learned Rent Contr oller however, he failed to comply
with the order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 13 (6) of the Ordinance, 1959 to deposit the rent for the month of April, May and August 2021 on the due date and deposited the rent for the month
of May 2021 on 15th June 2021. It is clear that the appellant has brought himself within the mischief of sub- section
(6) of Section 13 of the ordinance. Reliance is placed on the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Khawaja Muhammad Mughees’s case (2001 SCMR 2020) in which it was held by their Lordships that:
“In this view of the matter, the default on the part of the petitioner stands established. Furthermore, he had
failed to comply with the interim order dated 3- 10-1997 passed by this Court whereby he was required to
deposit rent for the month of October, before the 10th of November, 1997. There is no explanation on behalf of the petitioner in this respect. In this view of the matter, his defence was liable to be struck off as
no infirmity or lacuna, whatsoever, appears in the impugned order, the leave to refused . However, six
months’ time is allowed to the petitioner to put the landlady in vacant possession of the property in dispute.
This order will be subject to the payment of rent, current charges of ele ctricity and gas and clearance of
arrears bills of electricity within a month.”
Thus, keeping in view the above stated facts, circumstances, and discussions made thereupon, this Court reached to
the conclusion that the findings rendered by the learned tria l Court/Rent Controller are based on proper appreciation
of the evidence and material available on the record of the case and the law applicable thereto, which needs no
interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being bereft of merits is dis missed.
(Y.A.) Appeal dismissedThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.