2017 CLC 1242 ISLAMABAD

Full text

Syed USMAN KHALID VS ATTA MOHAMMAD 1990 SCMR 1688, 1993 CLC 2293, 2003 YLR 466, 2004 SCMR 1453, 2006 YLR 1389, 2007 CLC 140, 2007 CLC 234, 2007 CLC 556, 2007 CLC 579, 2008 MLD 1659, 2009 SCMR 784, 2012 YLR 1291, 2012 YLR 74, 2014 YLR 1525, 2015 YLR 2405, PLD 2006 Lah. 684, PLD 2011 SC 331, Default in payment of rent--Term , Ejectment of tenant--Term , Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance 2001--17 , Personal bona fide need of landlord--Term , S. 17---Ejectment of tenant---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Default in payment of rent---Tentative rent order---Term 'monthly rent which subsequently becomes due'---Connotation---Rent agreement---Scope---Rent Controller passed tentative rent order for deposit of rent before the fifteenth day of each succeeding month---eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller but Appellate Court accepted the same on the ground that tenant had violated the tentative rent order passed by the Rent Controller---Validity---Term 'monthly rent which subsequently becomes due' referred to the monthly rent which became due in the period after passing of tentative rent order until eviction petition was decided---Section 17(8) of Islamabad Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 2001 referred to a 'specified date' by which Rent Controller could require the tenant to deposit the unpaid rent accumulated upto the date of passing the tentative rent order---Rent agreement had role in not just determining the quantum of tentative rent but also the manner and time when same was to be paid---If rent agreement had provided for payment in advance then Rent Controller in tentative rent order could require the tenant to pay the tentative rent in advance---Section 17(8) of Islamabad Rent Restrictions Ordinance, 2001 did not prohibit the Rent Controller from requiring the tenant to pay the tentative rent in advance---If Rent Controller had ordered to pay tentative rent in the succeeding month despite the fact that rent agreement required the tenant to pay rent in advance or vice versa then unless such order was modified the tenant would be bound to comply with the said order---Tentative rent order had obligated the tenant to deposit tentative rent on or before fifteenth day of each succeeding month in future---Rent Controller did not strike off the tenant's defence for depositing tentative rent with delay---Rent Controller was cognizant of the obligation placed on the tenant to deposit tentative rent for each month by the fifteenth day of every succeeding month and not the current month---Appellate Court had interpreted the tentative rent order passed by the Rent Controller and penalized the tenant by holding that he had defaulted in showing compliance with the said order---Tenant deposited the tentative rent for each month before the fifteenth day of each succeeding month---Such a deposit was in consonance with the direction contained in the tentative rent order---Appellate Court was not correct in holding that tenant had defaulted in showing compliance with the tentative rent order passed by the Rent Controller---Defence of tenant was liable to be struck off unless compliance was shown by the tenant with the tentative rent order passed by the Rent Controller---Even a single day's default in showing compliance with a tentative rent order would entail penal consequences---Where rent agreement did not require the tenant to pay rent in advance then Rent Controller ought to specify in the tentative rent order that future rent was to be deposited by the tenant by the fifteenth day of succeeding month and not the current month---Impugned judgment passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and matter was remanded for decision afresh---Appellate Court might consider landlord's plea with regard to the bonafide need for the rented premises---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.