Irfan Ullah vs Fayaz S — 2025 MLD 918 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Irfan Ullah VS Fayaz S. 13(6)---Eviction petition---Order of the Rent Controller to deposit rent---Default by the tenant---Defence of the tenant, striking of---In wake of default in payment of monthly rent pursuant to the order of the Rent Controller, the defence of the tenant was struck of and eviction order was passed---Landlord filed constitutional petition as the District Court remanded the matter setting aside the eviction order---Validity---Respondents /tenants were directed to pay the monthly rent by the Rent Controller, though, it had not been specifically mentioned in the said order that what would be the monthly rent, however, the record (contents of the eviction application filed by the landlord as well as conduct of the respondents whereby he himself had requested the court to allow him rent at the rate of Rs.3700/- per month) clearly showed that there was no confusion between the parties regarding the rate of rent as the respondents had been depositing the rent at the rate of Rs. 3700/- per month pursuant to the said rent-depositing order of the Rent Controller---Yet the respondents had failed to pay the monthly rent in court on time on two occasions i.e. the rent for the months of November and December, 2017, was deposited on 30.04.2018 whereas the rent for the months of November and December, 2018, was deposited on 07.12.2018---Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 ('the Ordinance 1959') clearly envisages that if the tenant makes default in payment of rent in compliance of the order through which he is ordered to pay rent his defence shall be struck off--- The word "makes default" occurring in S.13(6) of the Ordinance, 1959 is of considerable importance--- Said provision prima facie does not show that an oversight default of the tenant would also be of the said serious consequence---Default would mean a wilful default and not one which may have been unavoidable---Even the delay of 03 days in depositing the monthly rent pursuant to the order of court was a wilful default liable to striking of the defence of the tenant---Perusal of the entire evidence available on record showed that the respondents/tenants not only remained negligent in pursuing the case before the Rent Controller but had wilfully defaulted in payment of monthly rent on two occasions--- Thus, the mandate of law was that his defence should be struck off resulting in the eviction of the tenants from the demised premises---High Court set-aside impugned remand order passed by the District Court and maintained eviction order passed by the Rent Controller---Constitutional petition , filed by landlord , was allowed.

Irfan Ullah vs Fayaz S — 2025 MLD 918 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD