2006 SCMR 145 SUPREME-COURT

Full text

GHULAM MUSTAFA BUGHIO VS ADDITIONAL CONTROLLER OF RENTS, CLIFTON Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--17 , Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--24 , Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963--6-A , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , --Ss. 6-A, 17 & 24---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Tenant deliberately failed to comply with order directing to deposit the arrears and monthly rent---Rent Controller, on the motion of landlord passed an order striking off defence of the tenant in terms of S.17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act, 1963, directing him to vacate the premises and hand over possession thereof to the landlord---Tenant, instead of filing a regular appeal before the High Court filed an application under S.151, C.P.C. before the Rent Controller, who recalled the order of ejectment, subject to payment of fine, with direction to the parties to file rent-account on the next date of hearing---Tenant filed written statement on the same day which was allowed to be placed on record in which he had claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.6,46,800 in cash to the landlord on account of rent of the premises upto 31-2-2006 without the execution of any acknowledgment receipt---Tenant, however, did not comply with the rent deposit order of the Rent Controller--When the case came up for hearing before the successor Rent Controller, he, after hearing the parties, restored earlier order of ejectment passed by his predecessor and directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the landlord---High Court dismissed the appeal against the said order of the successor Rent Controller---Validity---Held, Rent Controller was legally justified in passing the order directing the tenant to deposit tentatively arrears of rent and continue to deposit future rent---No exception could be taken to said order, which remained unattended and not complied with by the tenant without any legal justification---Non-compliance with the said order was bound to result in punitive consequences and culminated in striking off defence of the tenant which was passed after providing an opportunity to the tenant whose representative had appeared before the Rent Controller and candidly admitted that no payment on account of rent had been made by the tenant---Rent Controller, in view of admitted and uncontested position was perfectly justified and duty bound in striking off defence of the tenant and directing his eviction forthwith---Such order of the Rent Controller, though was appealable before the High Court, instead of challenging the same in appeal, the tenant moved an application under S.151, C.P.C. and the incumbent Rent Controller was persuaded to recall of order of eviction, which by reason of non-challenge and with passage of time had attained finality--- Landlord though had not challenged the order of the Rent Controller, but the fact remained that such order being void ab initio, coram non judice and nullity in the eyes of law, could be ignored---Successor incumbent of the Controller, after hearing the parties and realizing that there was absolutely no truth in the submission of the tenant that he had paid a sum of Rs.6,46,800 in advance to the landlord covering the rent upto 31-2-2006 was justified in recalling the order illegally passed by his predecessor---Principles---Supreme Court observed that it was high time that Government should take steps for amendment in the provisions of Cantonments Rent Restrictions Act, 1963 providing for appointment of Judicial Officers as Rent Controller and Additional Controller of Rent under S.6 of the Act instead of conferring quasi-judicial powers on Executive Officer of the Cantonment, who was generally not fully well-versed with the complexities of law but otherwise invested with the power to deal with very valuable property rights of the citizens owning properties in Cantonment areas throughout the country.