2021 YLR 1603 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

Mian ABID AZIZ VS AFTAB QADRI Ss.17(8)& 17(9)---eviction of tenant---Default in payment of monthly rent---Non-compliance of order of the Court made under S.17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (the Act 1963) to deposit arrears as well as future monthly rent---Rent Controller struck off the right of defence on the application of landlord under S.17(9) of the Act 1963 and passed eviction order forthwith---Appellant/tenant contended that non-speaking order was passed by the Rent Controller without considering that they made rent deposits in advance---Respondent/landlord contended that appellant only made random payments and did not comply with the order of the Controller to deposit rent---Held, that appellant placed on record a certificate regarding deposit of rent which contained details of the rent deposited---Due consideration thereof revealed that the entries pertained to deposit of rent for almost five years and it appeared that the rent was deposited for every month---Multiple deposits were made in advance though the deposits could have been made before the 5th of the succeeding month---Application of respondent under S.17(9) of the Act, 1963, was vague, which did not specify the alleged late deposit on basis of which non-compliance of order was claimed and it was only asserted in said application that the order of deposit of rent had not complied with, without pointing out as to in which month the default was made or non-compliance of order was made---Rent Controller did not consider the contention/defence of appellant/tenant, whereas he was duty bound to first consider the mandate of S.17(8) of the Act, 1963 and also his own order for deposit of future rent and, thereafter, should have determined as to whether any late/short payment was made, and if so, for which month/ period---Rent Controller while passing impugned order did not consider that the rent actually deposited by the appellants was in advance for each month and , therefore, the deposit on 5th of each month in advance could not possibly entail the consequence of "willful default" unless it could be demonstrated that the rent deposited on the 5th of each calendar month was with regard to the rent of the previous month---Impugned order being perfunctory, vague and against the law, was not legally sustainable---High Court set aside impugned order and remanded the matter to Rent Controller to decide the same afresh---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.