This is a second appeal against an order for the ejectment of the appellant, Syed Nawab Shah, from a shop belonging to the respondent. Mst. Majeedah Khatoon and eight others.
2. The said order was made on an application, under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. The Rent Controller, who was seized of that application made an order on 6th April 1977, under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance, directing _ the appellant to deposit arrears of rent before 10th May 1977, and the future monthly rent before the 15th of the month next following the one for which it could become payable. The appellant did make the deposits as directed but in the name of Dr. Abdul Majeed, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, and not in the name of the respondents, The learned Rent Controller, therefore struck off his defence and ordered his ejectment. The appellant went in appeal before an Addi--tional District Judge but without success. Hence this second appeal.
3. The appellant got the shop in dispute on lease from Dr. Abdul Majeed" On the death of Dr. Abdul Majeed, the respondents inherited the shop and thus became its owners. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that before the filing of the ejectment application by the respon--dents, the appellant had been depositing rent in the office of the learned Rent Controller in the name of Dr. Abdul Majeed and, therefore, he continued depositing the rent accordingly even after the direction of the learned Rent ,Controller. It was also urged by him that since the order of the learned Rent Controller did not require the appellant to deposit rent in the name of the respondents, he did not make a departure from his earlier practice of depositing rent in the name of their predecessor-in-interest, Dr. Abdul Majeed.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent contended that as the application had been made by the . Respondents and it was also admitted by the appellant in his reply to the application that he had paid some rent, .To Sh. Abdul Hamid respondent, who is one of the successors--in- interest of Dr. Abdul Majeed, the appellant had no good reason for not making the deposit in the name of the respondents.
5. It is not disputed that before the initiation of the ejectment proceed--ings against him, the appellant had been depositing rent in the name of Dr. Abdul Majeed, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. He has explained that since the respondents had declined to receive rent from him, he felt constrained to deposit the same with the Rent Controller. In the order made by the learned Rent Controller regarding the deposit of rent, he did not direct that the rent shall be deposited in the name of the respon--dents, so as to make it clear to the appellant that the required deposits were not to be made in the name of their predecessor-in-interest any longer. It is also not denied that the appellant has deposited arrears of rent as well as future rent in terms of the direction of the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, the mere fact that in the challans for the deposit of rent, the A appellant entere'd the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents instead of mentioning their names does not justify a conclusion that he failed to comply with the direction of the learned Rent Controller, especially when the said direction or the provisions of subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance did not specifically require him to make the deposits in question in the name of the respondents.
6. Another factor which deserves to be noticed is that the deposits of rent are required to be made under subsection (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance with a view to ensuring payment of arrears of rent, if any, and the future rent to the landlord. But, regardless of the fact that these deposits are made in the name of the landlord or any other person, he (landlord) cannot withdraw the amounts thereof without the permission of the Rent Controller. In other words, the amounts thus deposited can be paid to the landlord under the orders of the Rent Controller even if the deposits are made in the name of any person other than the landlord. And, this has, in fact, happened in 'the present case, because after the disposal of the ejectment application the learned Rent Controller allowed the respondents to withdraw all the amounts deposited by the appellant in the name of their predecessor-in-interest. It will, therefore, be observed that by making the deposits in question in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent. Neither the appellant has derived any such benefit as could not accrue to him by making the deposits in the name of the respondents nor the respondents have suffered in any manner whatsoever. Thus, even if the deposits of rent by the appellant in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents is treated as a lapse on his part, it is of no consequence and deserves to be overlooked.
8. In this view of the matter, the case before me was not a fit case for striking off the defence of the appellant and ordering his ejectment.
9. As a result, I accept the appeal, set aside the orders of the two tribunals below and remand the case to Mr. Shaukat Ali, Rent Controller, Lahore, with the direction that he shall take further proceedings therein and decide it afresh in accordance with law.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. The parties shall appear before the learned Rent Controller on 25th February 1979.