' The appellants, through the filing of the present second appeal, under section 15(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Ordinance,1959, (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance) have called in question judgment dated 3-7-2003, whereby the learned Additional District Judge accepted respondent's appeal and remanded the case to the learned trial Court, while setting aside the ejectment order dated 17-7-2002, through which the learned Rent Controller, after striking off the defence of the respondent, accepted the ejectment petition, filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants.
2. Mian Muhammad Saeed, Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, tiled an ejectment petition, seeking the eviction of the respondent from the shop in question on the grounds of personal need and failure to pay the monthly rent after statutory increase by 25%. After the death of the original ejectment petitioner, the appellants as his legal representatives were impleaded as petitioners in the ejectment petition. The said ejectment petition was resisted by the respondent by filing the written reply. On 27-10-1996, the learned Rent Controller, in exercise of this powers under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, 1959, after the fixation of tentative rent of Rs.875 directed the respondent to deposit the future monthly rent @ Rs.875 per month till 14th of each month and also framed the issues. The said order was subsequently modified to the extent of the amount of tentative rent, which was re-fixed at Rs.810 vide order dated 21-5-2002. Pursuant to the filing of an application, by the appellants for the production of original receipts, the learned Rent Controller directed the respondent to submit the receipts and thus, the respondent produced the requisite receipts.
Thereupon the learned Rent Controller, after finding that the respondent had allegedly paid the rent to the appellants, while he was bound to deposit the future monthly rent in the Government Treasury and that the rent for the month of November, 2001, was deposited in January, 2002, came to the conclusion that the respondent has committed default in fulfilling the terms of rent deposit order, proceeded to strike off the defence of the respondent and accepted appellants' ejectment petition vide order dated 17-7-2002. The respondent challenged the said order before the appellate authority and the learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal, set aside the said order and remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller with the direction to decide the case on merits, after recording the evidence on already framed issues vide judgment dated 3-7-2003 hence the present second appeal.
3. The . Learned counsel for the appellants, while supporting the ejectment order, passed by the learned Rent Controller, has submitted that the respondent committed default in complying with the terms of rent deposit order, the legal consequence of which was to strike off the defence of tenant, but the learned Additional District Judge, in complete oblivion of the facts of the case and law on the subject, has reversed the findings of the Rent Controller, even without substituting its own findings, thus, according to the learned counsel, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel for the respondent, while refuting the aforesaid contention, has submitted that since the appellants were receiving the rent therefore, there was no need to deposit the same in the Government Treasury. He has further submitted that although the rent of November, 2001 had already been paid tp the appellants in the shape of price of sanitary goods, yet as a precautionary measure, the rent of the said month was deposited in the month of Jandary, 2002 after obtaining necessary permission from the learned Rent Controller. He has placed on record the original application dated 12-2-2002.
4. Undisputedly, the learned Rent Controller, in exercise of powers under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, passed an order, on 27-10-1996, thereby fixing the tentative rent of the shop in question and also directing the respondent to deposit the future monthly rent @ Rs.810 per month till 14th of each month. It would be appropriate to reproduce a portion of the said order, which reads as follows:-- "Accordingly, tentative rent is fixed as Rs.810 per month and the respondent is directed to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs.810 per month in future till 14th of each." (Underlining is mine)
' Subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance, 1959 inter alia provides that the Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit all the rent due from him and also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case before the 15th of each month. In view whereof, undoubtedly, the order regarding the deposit of future monthly rent was passed in consonance with the aforenoted provisions of law. Even otherwise, both the parties admit that order for the deposit of future monthly rent was legally passed.
5. Now the question arises as to whether the respondent has complied with the terms of rent deposit order by allegedly paying the rent, through the receipts from October, 1996 till October, 2001, to the appellants directly. The said stance of the respondent was disputed by the appellants by submitting that the said receipts are fake, forged and have been manipulated with the intention to avoid the payment of rent from October, 1996 to October, 2001. According to section 13(6) of the Ordinance, as noted above, the respondent was directed to deposit the rent, therefore, the said rent could not be paid to the appellants directly even with their concurrence. Thus the respondent by making the alleged payment to the appellants, has undoubtedly committed default in fulfilling the terms of order dated 27-10-1996 and also violated the mandatory provision of section 13(6) of the Ordinance. It is also pertinent to mention here that the alleged receipts, showing the payment for the period of October, 1996 to October, 2001, have specifically been denied by the appellants and they have also denied that they have received any rent. The learned Rent Controller has rightly held that in view of order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, the respondent was bound to deposit the monthly rent in the Government treasury. To my mind, while reversing the said findings of the learned Rent Controller, the learned Additional District Judge has completely misdirected himself and upset well-reasoned order of the learned Rent Controller even without substitution its own findings.
6. Now turning to the second aspect of the case i.e. About the deposit of rent for the month of November, 2001. The parties admit that the rent of November, 2001 was deposited in the month of January, 2002. The defence of the respondent, in this regard, is that the rent of November, 2001 was deposited for the second time as a precautionary measure and the learned Rent Controller has granted him the permission. It flows from the above that even according to the stance of the respondent, the rent for the month of November, 2001 was deposited in January, 2002, whereas, the said rent under the law was to be deposited before 15th of December, 2001. Thus the respondent has clearly committed the default in fulfilling the terms of rent deposit order. It is clear from the above that on both the counts. The respondent violated the order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance.
Now the question arises as to whether the learned Rent Controller was competent in law to grant permission to the respondent to deposit the rent of November, 2001 in January, 2002, as canvassed by the learned counsel. Suffice it to say that the plea raised by the learned counsel is contrary to the provisions of section 13(6) of the Ordinance, 1959, as default under section 13(6) of the Ordinance is of a peculiar nature, as held by the Apex Court of the Country in a case reported as Muhammad Yousaf v. Muhammad Bashir and others 1990 SCM R 557. It is settled law that in case of default of terms of order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, the learned Rent Controller has no discretion to condone it. If any case is needed, cases of Muhammad Yousaf (supra) and Syed Muhammad Zaman v. Abdul Khaliq 1991 SCM R 1982 can be referred.
7. Admittedly, it is not the case of the respondent that the learned Rent Controller either committed any illegality or acceded from its jurisdiction, while passing the order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, thereby directing the respondent to deposit the future monthly rent. The respondent failed to comply with the terms of order passed by the learned Rent Controller, therefore, the learned Rent Controller rightly in exercise of its powers under the said provision of law, struck off the defence of the respondent and consequently accepted the ejectment petition. From the perusal of the provisions of section 13(6) of the Ordinance, it is evident that the same are mandatory in nature and if the learned Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that a default in compliance with the order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance has been committed, he has no discretion to decide whether or not he would enforce the aforesaid clause. In these circumstances, the learned Rent Controller is bound to abide by the said provisions of law and has no alternative/option to proceed otherwise. Under the law, when it is proved that non-compliance with the order of the learned Rent Controller, passed under section 13(6), has been made by a tenant, the learned Rent Controller had to strike off the defence of the tenant. In the present case, the learned Rent Controller acted completely in accordance with law, and proceeded to strike off the defence of the respondent for non-compliance of order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, 1959,. Which order is legal unexceptionable, apt to the facts and circumstances of the case and passed by the learned Rent Controller in exercise of its jurisdiction vested in him under the law.
8. I have examined the impugned judgment and find that the same suffers from legal errors and the learned Additional District Judge without diverting to the findings of the learned Rent Controller and without substituting its own findings, has illegally reversed the well-reasoned order of the learned Rent Controller. It appears from the tenor of the impugned judgment that the same was passed in complete oblivion of the facts of the case and law on the subject, thus I am of the firm view that the same is not sustainable and I am inclined to set it aside.
9. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 3-7-2003 is set aside with no order as to costs. Resultantly the ejectment order dated 17-7-2002 stands restored. However, the respondent is allowed a period of one month to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to the appellants.