' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.--- Pre-admission notice was issued to respondent No,1, however, after hearing the learned counsel for the said respondent, I consider it appropriate to decide the case on merits and, as such, the case is admitted to regular hearing. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 is present and accepts notice on behalf of said respondent.
2. Through this Constitutional petition, the writ petitioners have called-inquestion the findings arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, on 28-5-2012, when a rent appeal filed against the ejectment order passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) dated 17-1-2012 was accepted and resultantly ejectment petition filed by the writ petitioners, was dismissed.
3. The petitioners sought the ejectment of respondent No,1 from the demised premises only on the ground of default in payment of rent and after grant of leave to contest the ejectment petition, the parties were provided opportunity to adduce their respective evidence by means of an order passed on 17-1-2012. The learned Special Judge (Rent), Rawalpindi has ordered the acceptance of ejectment petition and vacation of respondent No,1 from the property, it. Question, on the findings arrived at on issue No,1. While giving findings on the said issue, the learned Special Judge (Rent) was of the view that the default, as had been alleged in the ejectment petition, was not established, but respondent No,1 was guilty of default in strict compliance of the order passed on 2-12-2010 under the provisions of section 24 of the Rented Premises Laws in Punjab and only on the basis of such noncompliance, the ejectment was ordered.
4. The findings so arrived at by the learned Special Judge (Rent) were challenged by the tenants only. The present petitioners, however, never challenged the findings of the learned Special Judge (Rent), whereby, it was concluded that, the default in payment of rent as was pleaded in ejectment petition was never established to have been committed by respondent No,1. While deciding the appeal, the learned appellate Judge was of the view that even no default has been proved of the order passed on 2-12-2010 by the learned Special Judge (Rent), whereby, the rent was tentatively assessed and order was passed for such deposit.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that although the default, as has been alleged in the ejectment petition, could not have been proved, but on account of non-compliance of the order of deposit of tentative rent as was passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) on 2- 12-2010, the tenants exposed themselves to an order of eviction.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 has supported the judgment passed in appeal.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. Since no other question has been raised, as such, the question of wilful default on the part of respondent No,1 is to be examined.
9. The order dated 2-12-2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Rent) is of much significance for disposal of the instant petition, relevant part whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:- "For what has been discussed above, at this stage petitioner is directed to pay the rent of both the shops at Rs,12,000 with effect from. April, 2009 untill now and at the same rate for future till the disposal of the petition, in the account of the respondent or with this Rent Tribunal as per procedure. It is made clear that the amount, of the rent deposited through his petition as mentioned earlier by the petitioner will he deducted from the above mentioned calculation. The remaining rent will be paid by the petitioner within the period of 30 days from today. In future he will pay at the same rate by tenth of each month."
' The perusal of the above order reveal that it is vague to the extent that it has not been made clear as to by 10th of which month either 'current'. Or 'succeeding', the future rent was ordered to be deposited.
10. The Special Judge (Rent) has been empowered to pass an order for deposit of tentative rent during pendency of ejectment proceedings by means of section 24 of the Rented Premises Laws in Punjab, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- "(1) If an eviction application is filed, the Rent Tribunal, while granting leave to contest, shall direct the tenant to deposit the rent due from him within a specified time and continue to deposit the same in accordance with the tenancy agreement or as may be directed by the Rent Tribunal in the bank account of the landlord or in the Rent Tribunal till the final order.
(2) If there is a dispute as the amount of rent due or rate of rent, the Rent Tribunal shall tentatively determine the dispute and pass the order fir deposit of the rent in terms of subsection (1).
(3) In case the tenant has not paid a utility bill, the Rent Tribunal shall direct the tenant to pay the utility bill.
(4) If a tenant fails to comply with a direction or order of the Rent Tribunal, the Rent Tribunal shall forthwith pass the final order."
' There are two parts of the above referred provision of law. First deals with a direction with regard to the deposit of arrears, if any, and the second one deals with the assessed rent of the premises, in question, for future dates during pendency of the petition. The word 'rent due' used in the first part of the, provision and the word 'same' in the second part of the provision of section 24 are clear indicators to the intention of the legislatures that it is 'rent due,' which can be ordered to be paid by the Rent Tribunal even for the future dates. In absence of any tenancy agreement in between the parties to the litigation, the rent due is always to be considered a rent to be paid after expiry of one month. The said term 'rent due' in no way denotes to either an advance rent or deposit of the rent, of current month in the same month.
11. Since the default, as had been alleged in the ejectment petition, could not have been proved by the petitioners and the findings so arrived at by the Special Judge (Rent) were not subsequently challenged by the ejectment petitioners and the default, which has been proved against respondent No,1 according to the Special Judge (Rent) is not a default by any means, the findings arrived at by the learned first appellate court seem to be weighty and in accordance with law. The same are not liable to be interfered with. There is no wilful default on the part of respondent No,1 and in view of the deposit subsequent, to order dated 2-12-2010 in strict compliance of the said order, respondent No,1 cannot be penalized for the imaginary non-compliance of the directions contained in the said order.
12. The phrase 'rent' has although been defined by virtue of section 2(h) of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, but the phrase 'rent due', which has been used in section 24 of the Act has not separately been defined. Even this was the position in the earlier rent laws viz. The West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, as also the Punjab Rented Premises Ordinance, 2007.
13. The phrase 'rent due' has been interpreted by the Courts. In case of Ibrahim Trust v. Shaheed Freigh PLD 2011 Supreme Court 311), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:- "In absence of any date fixed between the landlord and tenant by mutual agreement, rent shall be paid not later than 10th of month next following the month for which it is due". .
In the case of Asad Brothers v.Ibadat Yar Khan (1991 SCM R 986), with regard to the rent laws prevailing in Sindh at the relevant time, the findings were as follows:-- "It, therefore, logically follows that an order under section 16(1) of the Ordinance can only be passed, in respect of the arrears of "rent dues" and in respect of future monthly "rent".
' This Court in case of Ashraf Hussain v. Asad Bashir (2007 CLC 579) was of the following view:-- "Obviously, the rent of each month becomes "due" on 30th day of that month, thus, tenant is required under the law to deposit the future monthly rent before 15th day' of succeeding month, When law unequivocally provides that future monthly rent due is to be deposited before 15th day of succeeding month, how the learned Rent Controller could evolve his own procedure in violation of the provision of law,"
' Again this court in case of Yaqoob Shah Bukhari v. Shah Muhammad (2001 YLR 2767) by placing reliance on the case of Muhammad Baqar Qureshi v. Mst. Razia Begum (1981 SCM R 18) has held as under:-- "The provislon of section 13(2)(i) comprises two parts dealing with two different and distinct situations. In the first part it stipulates a situation where a time is fixed in the agreement of tenancy for payment of rent and in such a case the phrase "rent due by him" means the rent which has become due according to the terms of the tenancy and if it is not paid within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement then the tenant is liable to ejectment."
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Mehboob Illah v. Saqib Mehmood Riaz and others (1990 SCM R 1688) has held in the following manner:-- "Tenant had to deposit the rent for specified month before 15th of the next month. Tenant had sent rent through money orders for the specified month and for the month following on 11th of the specified month and on the 2nd of the next month. Such tender amounted to deposit' in the performance of tenant's obligation under S. 13(6) of the Ordinance and such tenant could not be adjudged as a defaulter and penalized far noncompliance of order under S. 13(6) of Ordinance VI of 1959".
' Lastly, this Court in case of Muhammad Naeem Abbas v. Mst. Muhammad Jan (2008 M LD 1659) has held in the following terms:-- "Rent for a month would become due upon its expiry and upon becoming due would become payable before 15th day from such date. Order of Rent Controller directing deposit of rent for same month before 15th of same month would be illegal. Rent for the month of October, 2007 had become due for payment before 15th of next month i,e, 15-11-2007."
14. As noted earlier, the special Judge (Rent), in the present case, has passed a vague "direction making not clear as to by which date of which month, future rent was to be paid by the tenant.
' The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred R-35, R-38, R-40 and R-42 showing the deposit of rent for the said month in the same very month, but as the deposit was made after the 10th of each current month, the same was considered as a violation of order passed under section 24 of the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009, and the tenants were held defaulters in payment of rent.
15. The findings so arrived at by the Special Judge (Rent) are, thus, in derogation of the law on the subject of deposit of "rent due" and, therefore, the same were rightly reversed by the learned first appellate court.
' The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or illegality in the judgment impugned herein passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi on 28-5-2012. Thus, the same is sustained and the petition having no force is dismissed.