' MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.---This first appeal is directed against the order dated 14th February 2013 (the "impugned order"), passed by the learned Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Quetta (the "Rent Controller"), in eviction Application No,5 of 2011, directing the petitioners to vacate the shops in their occupation and hand over its vacant possession to the respondent No, I.
2. Brief facts, leading to filing of the instant appeal, are that the respondent No,1 instituted an eviction application against the appellants/tenants before the Rent Controller. During course of the proceedings, an order dated 23rd November 2011 under section 13(6) of the Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (the "Ordinance") was passed on the following terms:-- "Called. Counsel for parties are present and with heard, regarding application U.O. 13(6) of R.R.O., during which both were agreed over depositing of Rs,625 p.m. As rent, therefore, resp. Are directed to deposit Rs,625 as rent, before 15th of every succeeding month, since July 2011."
3. Subsequently, the respondent No,1 claimed that the appellants had failed to comply with the order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance and moved an application for striking off defence, which was allowed and the ejectment of the appellants was ordered vide impugned order. Being aggrieved with the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the appellants have filed the instant appeal with the prayer to set aside the same.
4. The learned counsel for appellants submitted that the learned Rent Controller has not applied his judicial mind to the facts of the present case and has decided the matter in a slipshod and cursory manner, without considering the factual position of the case. He further added that the learned Rent Controller has passed the impugned order without seeking report from Civil Nazir of the Court in a casual manner, that too, on the basis of personal knowledge and presumptions.
While concluding his arguments, he further submitted that since the entire rent has been paid; hence, the purpose of order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance has been fulfilled.
5. Before dilating upon the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties., it would be advantageous to have a glance to the relevant provisions of law i,e, section 13(6) of the Ordinance, which read as under:-- "13(6). In proceedings under this section on the first date of hearing or as soon as possible after that date and before issues are framed, 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 fifteenth day of each month, rent due from him. If there is any dispute about the amount of rent due or the rate of rent, the Controller shall determine such amount approximately and direct that the same be deposited by the tenant before a date to be fixed for the purpose. If the tenant makes default in the compliance of such an order, then if he is the petitioner, his application shall be dismissed summarily and if he is the respondent, his defence shall be struck off and the landlord put into possession of the property without taking any further proceedings in the case.
The Controller shall finally determine the amount of rent due from the tenant and direct that the same be paid to the landlord, subject to adjustment of the approximate amount deposited by the tenant."
6. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of law clearly demonstrate that in case of violation of an order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, no discretion is left with the learned Rent Controller, but to strike off defence, of the tenant. It is also by now well-settled that the person, who did not obey the order of the Court, has no right to remain present before the Court and to contest the matter.
7. It would also be relevant to reproduce herein below the list of payments made by the appellants Nos.1 to 3 in pursuance of order dated 28th November 2011, passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, which are as under:-- Appellant No,1 Amir Hamza (late) through his heirs: S. No.Date of deposit AmountPeriod of rent 1 8th December 2011Rs.3,150July 2011 to November 2011 2 12th March 2012 Rs.1,875December 2011 to February 2012 3 11th December 2012Rs.6,250March to December 2012 4 10th January 2013Rs.625January 2013 5 13th March 2013 Rs.1,875February to April 2013 6 26th June 2013 Rs.1,250May and June of 2013 Appellant No,2 Sikandar Shah: S. No.Date of deposit AmountPeriod of rent 1 8th December 2011Rs.3,125July 2011 to November 2011 2 12th March 2012 Rs.1,875December 2011 to February 2012 3 11th December 2012Rs.6,250March to December 2012 4 10th January 2013Rs.625January 2013 5 13th March 2013 Rs.1,875February to April 2013 6 26th June 2013 Rs.1,250May and June of 2013 Appellant No,3 Abdul Hakeem: S. No.Date of deposit AmountPeriod of rent 1 8th December 2011Rs.3,125July 2011 to November 2011 2 12th March 2012 Rs.1,875December 2011 to February 2012 3 11th December 2012Rs.6,250March to December 2012 4 10th January 2013Rs. 625January 2013 5 13th March 2013 Rs.1,875February to April 2013 6 26th June 2013 Rs.1,250May and June of 2013
8. Since it cannot be disputed that the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, as such, in view of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding non- obtaining a report from Civil Nazir of the Court, a fresh report, detail whereof has been given in the aforesaid table, was sought from the concerned Civil Nazir, which clearly shows that it is a clear case of non-compliance of order undersection 13(6) of the Ordinance. The rent has not been deposited in compliance of the order and there have been successive and persistent late deposits.
The learned counsel for the appellants also failed to furnish/offer reasonable explanation for such delayed deposits. In case of delay, the appellants had to explain and justify each day's delay in the deposit of the rent and mere deposit of outstanding rent in lump sum is not sufficient to save the tenant from penal consequences of an order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance. It also goes without saying that the impugned order purported details of the report submitted by the Civil Nazir of the Civil Court and the fact that the report was sought by the learned Rent Controller is also mentioned on the surface of the application filed by the respondent No,1 for striking off the defence of the appellants.
9. Similarly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the order of the learned Rent Controller suffers from misreading and non-reading of the documentary evidence available on record, is also without any substance, as he has not been able to specifically mention any particular part of the evidence recorded before the Rent Controller, nor referred to any document, which has not been taken into consideration by the learned Rent Controller, while passing the impugned order. Mere saying that, the order suffers from misreading and non-reading of the evidence or was passed without taking into consideration any document, is not sufficient to create a ground for setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller.
' In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller is in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the appeal, being without any merit, is hereby dismissed.