2014 M L D 229
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J
MUSAWIR AHMED and others ---Applicants
Versus
GHULAM RASOOL and another ---Respondents
F.A.O. No.36 of 2013, decided on 30th September, 2013.
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ---
----Ss.13 & 15 ---Ejectment of tenant on the ground of failure to comply with the order of Rent
Controller to deposit rent in time ---Scope ---Landlord instituted eviction application against the
appellant/tenant ---Rent Controller directed the tenant/appellant to deposit monthly rent with the
court ---Appellant/tenant failed to deposit the rent by complying with the order of Rent
Controller, consequently impugned ejectment order was passed---Contention of the
appellant/te nant was that as he had already deposited the entire rent, therefore order of eviction
was illegal---Validity ---Report of Civil Nazir of the court showed that appellant/tenant had not
deposited the rent in compliance of the order of Rent Controller and deposited rent persistently
late---Appellant/ tenant had failed to furnish/offer reasonable explanation for such delayed
deposits ---Appellant in case of delay, had to explain and justify each day's delay in the deposit of
rent and mere deposit of outstanding rent in lump sum was not sufficient to save the tenant from
penal consequences ---Impugned order passed by Rent Controller was in accordance with law ---
Appeal was dismissed.
Faizullah Khan Sargarahi for Appellants.
Behlol Khan Kasi for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 4th September, 2013.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. ---This first appeal is directed against the
order dated 14th February 2013 (the "impugned order"), passed by the learned Civil Judge -II-
cum-Rent Controller, Quetta (the "Rent Controller"), in eviction Application No.5 of 2011,
directing the petitioners to vacate the shops in their occupation and hand over its vacant
possession to the respondent No.1.
2. Brief facts, leading to filing of the instant appeal, are that the respondent No.1 instituted
an eviction application against the appellants/tenants before the Rent Controller. During course
of the proceedings, an order dated 23rd November 2011 under section 13(6) of the Balochistan
Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (the "Ordinance") was passed on the following terms: --
"Called. Counsel for parties are present and with heard, regarding application U.O. 13(6)
of R.R.O., during which both were agreed over depositing of Rs.625 p.m. as rent, therefore, resp.
are d irected to deposit Rs.625 as rent, before 15th of every succeeding month, since July 2011."
3. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 claimed that the appellants had failed to comply with
the order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance and moved an appl ication for striking off
defence, which was allowed and the ejectment of the appellants was ordered vide impugned
order. Being aggrieved with the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the appellants have filed
the instant appeal with the prayer to set a side the same.
4. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that the learned Rent Controller has not
applied his judicial mind to the facts of the present case and has decided the matter in a slipshod
and cursory manner, without considering the factua l position of the case. He further added that
the learned Rent Controller has passed the impugned order without seeking report from Civil
Nazir of the Court in a casual manner, that too, on the basis of personal knowledge and
presumptions. While concluding his arguments, he further submitted that since the entire rent has
been paid; hence, the purpose of order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance has been fulfilled.
5. Before dilating upon the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it w ould
be advantageous to have a glance to the relevant provisions of law i.e. section 13(6) of the
Ordinance, which read as under: --
"13(6). In proceedings 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, rent 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 the 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, t hen 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 landlord put into possession of the property without taking any further proceedings in
the case.
The Controlle r shall finally determine the amount of rent due from the tenant and direct
that the same be paid to the landlord, subject to adjustment of the approximate amount deposited
by the tenant."
6. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of law clearly demo nstrate that in case of
violation of an order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, no discretion is left with the
learned Rent Controller, but to strike off defence of the tenant. It is also by now well -settled that
the person, who did not obey the order of the Court, has no right to remain present before the
Court and to contest the matter.
7. It would also be relevant to reproduce herein below the list of payments made by the
appellants Nos.1 to 3 in pursuance of order dated 28th November 2011, passed under section
13(6) of the Ordinance, which are as under: --
Appellant No.1 Amir Hamza (late) through his heirs:
S. No. Date of deposit Amount Period of rent
1 8th December 2011 Rs.3,150 July 2011 to November 2011
2 12th March 2012 Rs.1,875 December 2011 to February 2012
3 11th December 2012 Rs.6,250 March to December 2012
4 10th January 2013 Rs.625 January 2013
5 13th March 2013 Rs.1,875 February to April 2013
6 26th June 2013 Rs.1,250 May and June of 2013
Appellant No.2 Sikandar Shah:
S. No. Date of deposit Amount Period of rent
1 8th December 2011 Rs.3,125 July 2011 to November 2011
2 12th March 2012 Rs.1,875 December 2011 to February 2012
3 11th December 2012 Rs.6,250 March to December 2012
4 10th January 2013 Rs.625 January 2013
5 13th March 2013 Rs.1,875 February to April 2013
6 26th June 2013 Rs.1,250 May and June of 2013
Appellant No.3 Abdul Hakeem:
S. No. Date of deposit Amount Period of rent
1 8th December 2011 Rs.3,125 July 2011 to November 2011
2 12th March 2012 Rs.1,875 December 2011 to February 2012
3 11th December 2012 Rs.6,250 March to December 2012
4 10th January 2013 Rs. 625 January 2013
5 13th March 2013 Rs.1,875 February to April 2013
6 26th June 2013 Rs.1,250 May and June of 2013
8. Since it cannot be disputed that the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings,
as such, in view of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non-
obtaining a report from Civil Nazir of the Court, a fresh report, detail whereof has been given in
the aforesaid table, was sought from the concerned Civil Nazir, which clearly shows that it is a
clear case of non -compliance of order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The rent has not
been deposited i n compliance of the order and there have been successive and persistent late
deposits. The learned counsel for the appellants also failed to furnish/offer reasonable
explanation for such delayed deposits. In case of delay, the appellants had to explain and justify
each day's delay in the deposit of the rent and mere deposit of outstanding rent in lump sum is
not sufficient to save the tenant from penal consequences of an order passed under section 13(6)
of the Ordinance. It also goes without saying that the impugned order purported details of the
report submitted by the Civil Nazir of the Civil Court and the fact that the report was sought by
the learned Rent Controller is also mentioned on the surface of the application filed by the
respondent No.1 for stri king off the defence of the appellants.
9. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the
learned Rent Controller suffers from misreading and non- reading of the documentary evidence
available on record, is also without any substance, as he has not been able to specifically mention
any particular part of the evidence recorded before the Rent Controller, nor referred to any
document, which has not been taken into consideration by the learned Rent Controller, while
passing the impugned order. Mere saying that, the order suffers from misreading and non-
reading of the evidence or was passed without taking into consideration any document, is not
sufficient to create a ground for setting aside the order of the learned Re nt Controller.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the
learned Rent Controller is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference by this
Court in its appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the appea l, being without any merit, is hereby dismissed.
JJK/103/Bal Appeal dismissed.This 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.