' This second appeal is directed against the order, dated 10-11-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant against the ejectment order, dated 18-2-2004 passed by the learned Rent Controller was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the respondents instituted an ejectment petition against the appellant-tenant before the Rent Controller. During the course of the proceedings the order under section 13(6) of,the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was passed and subsequently modified on 12-6-2000 whereby the tenant's rent was fixed at the rate of Rs,4,500 per month. The appellant was directed to deposit the rent at the said rate from December, 1996 to June, 2000, totaling Rs,1,93,500, vide the same order the appellant was directed to deposit the future rent by or before the 15th of each successive month.
3. Subsequently, the respondent claimed that the appellant had failed to comply with the order passed under section 13(6) (ibid) and moved an application for striking off the defence. Initially, adjudication of the said application was deferred till the final decision of the ejectment petition.
The respondent filed an appeal and vides order, dated 24-4-2003, the Additional District Judge seized of the appeal remanded the case to the Rent Controller with a direction to decide the said application filed by the respondent. Consequently, the Rent Controller concluded that the respondent had failed to comply with the order passed under section 13(6) (ibid) and directed the ejectment of the respondent, vide order, dated 18-2-2004. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent preferred an appeal, which failed to find favour and was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide impugned order, dated 10-11-2004.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the records appended with the appeal has been perused.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the rent for the month of August, 2000 was paid in October, 2000; rent for July and August, 2001 was deposited in July, 2002; rent for April, May, and July to November, 2002 was paid on the 30th of the December, 2002; and rent for January to November, 2003 was paid on 31-12-2003. An issue has also been raised with regard to the deposits from July, August and September, 20Q4 deposited on the 1st of October, 2004..
6. Both the Courts below have also recorded the findings qua the late deposit of rent. The appellant has been unable to dispute the factual correctness of the deposits. However, it has been contended that in fact the entire rent has been paid hence the purpose of the order under section 13(6) (ibid) has been fulfilled.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised an issue that the original deposit of Rs,1,93,500 was subject to adjustment of rent already paid hence no default in compliance of deposits has been made. Furthermore, he has taken exception to the applicability to the application of section 5-A requiring enhanced payment of the rent.
8. I am afraid that the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. It is a clear case of non-compliance of order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The rent has not been deposited in compliance of the order when there has been successive and persistent late deposits. Neither in the ground of appeal nor at the Bar any explanation has been offered for such delayed deposits.
9. The language of section 13(6) of the Ordinance, 1959 makes it clear and obvious that once therein an order is passed and violated then there is no discretion left with the Rent Controller but to strike off the defence of the tenant. Such as the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment reported as Khan Muhammad Khan Lundkhor v. Safdar Ali PLD 1967 SC 530. Even delay of a few days can be fatal as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in case reported as Muhammad Umer v. Aisha 1981 SCM R 276.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments reported as Abdul Raaziq v.
Mst. Shahida Nasreen and 2 others 1987 CLC 1530, Muhammad Bashir v. Muhammad Siddiq and 2 others PLD 1981 Lah. 770 and Habib Bank Ltd. v. Amanullah 1986 CLC 2917.
11. The aforesaid judgments are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the lis in hand. It has not been held in the said judgments that consistent and persistent unexplained delays in the deposit of rent in violation of an order under section 13(6) can be condoned. Hence this appeal is without being any merit is hereby dismissed.