This judgment shall decide Writ Petitions Nos, 3317 to 3319 of 2003 as well as Writ Petition No, 3298 of 2003, as common questions are involved. On 16.5.2001, the respondent filed four applications for the ejectment of the petitioners from a building located in Islamabad Urban Area. It was stated that the rent payable in each case is Rs, 16250/- per month and the same has not been paid or tendered w.e.from 1.2.2001. The petitioner in its written statement. admitted the relationship of land- lord and tenant between the parties as also the rate of rent and now in response to the allegation of default in the payment of rent it was stated that the respondent himself stopped accepting the rent whereupon the petitioner proceeded to deposit the rent in the Court. The reference was also made to the said applications for deposit of rent and its pendency. On 24.2.2003, the learned Rent Controller proceeded to pass an order in terms of Section 17(8) of Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001. He directed the petitioner to deposit rent (4) of 65,000/- rupees per month in all the four cases, since February, 2001 till February, 2003 i,e, 25 months. This amount was calculated as Rs, 16,25,000/-. The learned Rent Controller further directed that if any rent has already been deposited, the same shall be adjusted. The deposited was ordered to be made till 22.3.2003. A direction for deposit of future rent was also issued. On 22.3.2003, the learned Rent Controller directed the petitioner to file the receipts of deposit on 1.4.2003. On this date an adjournment was sought for the said purpose and the case was adjourned to 4.4.2003. On the said date the receipts were filed. The learned Rent Controller found that the deposit is not in accord with his order and there is deficiency of Rs, 1,95,000/- representing rent at the said rate for three months in all the four cases. Consequently the defence was struck off and the petitioner was directed to hand cover the vacant possession to the landlord vide order dated 4.4.2003. First appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Islamabad on 9.12.2003.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are without lawful authority, inasmuch as, a sum of Rs, 1,95,000/- had been deposited with Habib Bank, Limited WAPDA House, Lahore on 5.5.2001 and a pay order has been issued. The contention is that since the said amount has been deposited to the credit of the respondent and the instrument could have been encashed only by him, it shall be deemed that the deposit within the meaning of said Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 has been made. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that in the absence of receipts or even the allegation that the pay order was delivered up to the respondent, the said plea is baseless and there was no deposit, in fact, or, within the meaning of law.
3. I have gone through the trial Court records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. I have already reproduced above, the main contents of the pleadings of the parties. In response to the categorical assertions of the landlord that rent with effect from February, 2001 has not been paid, the response of the petitioner was that since the respondent had refused to accept the rent, the same had been deposited in the Court by filling an application. Now the perusal of the daily order-sheet would show that in the first instance, the petitioner was recorded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.9.2001. These ex-parte proceedings were set-aside on 29.10.2001. The petitioner was again ,proceeded against ex-parte on 30.3.2002. These proceedings were set-aside on 30.4.2002. It was ultimately on 23.11.2002 that the written statements were filed in all these cases by the petitioner. On this date, the learned Rent Controller directed the petitioner to file the receipts of deposit of rent. These receipts were filed on 15.1.2003. These were examined by the learned Rent Controller on 24.2.2003 while passing the said order under Section 17(81 of the said Ordinance. It was noted that whereas the rent at the said rate for the period from February, 2001 to September, 2001 comes to Rs, 5,24,000/- the petitioner has made deposit of Rs, 3,25,000/-. It was further noted that no explanation has been offered regarding the absence of receipts or non-deposit of rent for the said three months. It was thus that the said order was passed. As noted by me above, the petitioner was against required to file the receipts to demonstrate the compliance of the said order dated 24.2.2003. After taking three adjustments, the receipts were filed and against there was no receipt for the said period of three months and this resulted into the passing of the ejectment order. Now I have examined the trial Court's file in each of these four cases from cover to cover, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have not been able to find any plea, of the nature being taken before me by the petitioner. in the trial Court records or any copy of the said pay-order therein. When confronted the learned counsel conceded that the plea was not taken before the learned trial Court but it was taken before the Court of appeal.
5. I had summoned the appellate Court's records and have examined the same. Now I do find that the said plea was taken in the Court of appeal that a deposit has been made in the Habib Bank and a pay-order had been issued.
6. Thereafter I have examined the memo. of writ petitions in all these cases. What comes out is that it was never even pleaded in any of the two Courts below and even before this Court that the said pay-order was ever handed over to the respondent and if so when, and as to whether any receipt was issued.
7. Needless to state that the mere fact that the petitioner made 'deposit in the bank and obtained a pay-order in the name of the respondent would be meaningless unless and until it was to be alleged and thereby to be proved that the pay-order was delivered to the respondent. When confronted with the said factual position, emerging on the basis of the record, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to vacate the premises. He prays for one year's time but the respondent present in the Court is not willing to grant the said time For all what has been discussed above, I do find that the order passed under Section 17(8) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, i,e, the order dated 24.2.2003 has not been complied with by the petitioner in all these cases and, as such, the learned Rent Controller rightly struck off the defence and passed an order of ejectment, the same was rightly affirmed by the learned District Judge. All these writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, I direct the petitioner to vacate the premises and to deliver its vacant possession to the respondent on or before 21.6.2004. In case, the petitioner fails to do the needful within the said period of time, the respondent shall be at liberty to execute the ejectment order and to file an application before the learned Executing Court, who shall issue warrants for possession and get the possession delivered by employing all process including the police aid in the matter. No orders as to costs.
8. A copy of this order be remitted to the learned Rent Controller immediately and the records of the learned trial Court as well as the Appellate Court be also remitted back.