' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the order dated 18-3- 1979 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the second appeal (S. A.
0. No, 163 of 1979) of the appellant herein.
2. The second appeal was directed against the order of ejectment of the appellant, Manzoor Niaz Faruki, from a house belonging to the respondent, Mian Gulzar Ahmad, Mian Gulzar Ahmad, respondent, in his ejectment application, which was filed on 28-10-1975, sought the ejectment of the appellant on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of rent from June, 1975 to September, 1975; impaired the value of the property and that the premises was required by him for his own use. All these pleas, however, were controverted by the respondent and the matter put to trial. The Rent Controller, therefore, passed an order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance on 28-1-1976 directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent from October, 1975 to December, 1975 amounting to Rs, 1,800 before 10-2-1976, as also the future rent for each month before 15th of the next month. He further directed the appellant to produce receipts for June, 1975 by the rent date. These receipts were examined on 17-4-1976 by the Rent Controller, who found that the receipts produced before him prima facie indicated that the year of the receipt had been changed from 1973 to 1975. Therefore, the Rent Controller passed an order on 17-4-1976 directing that the appellant should also deposit rent for June, 1975 to September, 1975 by 28-4-1976.
However, on further enquiry, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the receipts pertaining to the months of June, 1975 to September, 1975 were genuine and by his order dated 15- 5-1976 he withdrew his order dated 17-4-1976.
3. Sometime later, the respondent-landlord submitted another application alleging that the appellant had not paid the rent for the months of June, 1975 to September, 1975 as directed in the order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance and, therefore, prayed that his defence should be struck off, The appellant controverted this allegation also and submitted that he has deposited the rents for the period in question as follows :- {{TABLE}}
4. June, 1976 15-7-1976
5. August, 1976 15-9-1976
6. September, 1976 15-10-1976
7. July, 1976 9-8-1976 ' He further submitted that as rent of the months of June, August and September, 1976 was submitted on the 15th day of the next succeeding month and that the rent for the month of July, 1976 was deposited much before the 15th day of the next succeeding month there was no non- compliance with the order of the Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the Ordinance.
4. The Rent Controller, however, after hearing some evidence including the cashier of the Bank, came to the conclusion that the rent for the month of July, 1976 had not been deposited on 9-8- 1976, as alleged, but in fact was deposited on 19-8-1976. So far as the rent for the other three months was concerned, the same having been deposited on the 15th day of the succeeding month and not before the 15th day of the said month could also not be considered to have been deposited in conformity with his order. Consequently, the appellant's defence was struck off and a direction issued to. Him to hand over possession of the house to the respondent.
5. On appeal, the appellant challenged not only the correctness of the finding of the Rent Controller about the deposit of the rent for the month of July, 1976 having been made on 19-8-1976 and not on 9-8-1976 but also took up the plea that the appellant, in fact, paid the rent of the month of October, 1975 twice and, therefore, the rents deposited on 15th July, 19th August, 15th September and 15th October were not really the rents for the months of June, July, August and September but should be deemed to be rents paid in advance for the rents of the said months. On this view of the matter, there was no default at all.
6. The learned Additional District Judge rejected both the above pleas. As to the plea that any rent was deposited on 9-8-1976, he reaffirmed the finding that the deposit was,, indeed, made on 19-8- 1976. As for the plea that the appellant could, in any case, be taken to have deposited the rent for the month of July, 1976, already in that the rent for the month of October, 1975, was deposited twice it was observed that he could not take up this plea at this stage, because the appellant should have got the order of the Rent Controller under section 13(6) corrected if he thought that the rent of the month of October, 1975, had already been paid and should have requested that the amount of Rs, 1,800, which was ordered to be paid, should not include the rent for October, 1975. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed.
7. To challenge the above order of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner filed a second appeal in the Lahore High Court (S. A. O. No, 163 of 1979) wherein the same pleas were advanced. So far as the plea for payment of advance rent is concerned, it was pointed out that in the challan regarding the deposit of the rents shown to him it was clearly noted that the said deposits was for deposits of the rent for the months of June, August and September, 1976, and it was not the advance rent for the months of July, September and October, 1976, as asserted by the appellant. The plea about the advance rent, it was further pointed out, was an afterthought as was obvious from the record relating to the deposit of rents which comprised of entries made in the challans by the appellant himself. The learned Judge, therefore, upheld the concurrent findings of the two Courts below.
8. Coming to the other contention that the default attributed to the appellant was not wilful inasmuch as this was on account of a misunderstanding to the effect that the rent for each month could be deposited also on the 15th day of the succeeding month, it was ohserved that the order of the Rent Controller was quite clear that the future rent was to be deposited before the 15th day and not on the 15th day of the month. Consequently the plea that the default on the part of the appellant was not wilful could not be accepted. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed by the High Court.
9. Leave was granted by this Court to consider, inter alia, whether the appellant had not made a bona fide mistake in comprehending the law in considering that the deposit made on the 15th day could also be considered to be a due compliance with the law. As leave had already been granted in another Civil Petition No, 612 of 1978 (Ch. Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Rashid) for consideration of the same point it was directed that both the matters may be heard together.
10. However, on an application submitted by the respondent-landlord that in this case even if the appellant's plea that he had committed a bona fide mistake in comprehending that the deposit made on the 15th day was also due compliance with the law was correct, his appeal was still liable to fail because he had also violated the order of the Rent Controller in another aspect as well, in that though the rents for the months of June, August, and September, had, no doubt, been deposited on 15th July, 15th September and 15th October, but so far as the payment of the rent for the month of July, was concerned, that was made on the 19th August, and not on the 15th August, or any day before that. Consequently, this appeal had its own special features and may be heard separately. This appeal, accordingly, was separated and has been heard separately.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant first attempted to show that the deposit found by the Courts below to have been made on the 19th August, 1976, was in fact made on the 9th August.
However, after perusing the relevant record we see no ground for differing with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that the deposit in question was, indeed, made on the 19th August, 1976, and not on .The 9th August, 1976, as alleged.
12. Alternatively, the plea of payment of rent for the month of October twice was again pressed and it was submitted that in view of the said double payment the rents deposited on the 15th July, 19th Augnst (even if this was assumed to be the correct date), 15th September and 15th October could be taken as payment in advance of the rents for the said months and, consequently, there was no default at all. This plea too has been adequately dealt with by the learned Courts below and after having given full consideration to it ourselves we are satisfied that no interference therewith is called by us.
13. We might observe that the controversy whether any default had been made in compliance with the order of the Rent Controller passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance is due to the fact that the copies of the bank challan deposit, in connection with the deposit of rent in the bank are not normally brought on the file of the Rent Controller. The result is that the landlord has no means of discovering contemporaneously whet The order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance is being complied with, according to its terms or not. We note that normally the Rent Controllers, while passing orders under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, make the following directions, namely :-
(i) An order to the tenant for depositing all the rent due from him (i,e, the arrears of rent) before a day specified by them in their order ;
(ii) Deposit of future monthly rent before the 15th day of each succeeding: month.
' We think that it would be entirely appropriate if the Rent Controllers, in addition to the above directions, also direct the tenant to file a copy of the bank challan receipt relating to the payment of arrears of rent alongwith an application to the Rent Controller within one week of the deposit for bringing the said copy of the bank challan on the record. They should further direct the tenant to continue filing copies of the bank challan receipts with regard to the deposit of monthly rents, also within the sam period of one week of the deposit of monthly rents. It may be that non-compliance of the order with regard to the filing of the copy of the bank challan receipts before the Rent Controller may not itself constitute a ground for striking off the defence of the tenent. However, the failure to file the copies of the bank challan receipts, within the stipulated period, will alert the landlord of the possible default committed by the tenan and enable him to immediately file an application before the Rent Controlle for striking off his defence. In this way, it will at once enable the Rent Controller to determine if his order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance has been violated and this matter can, therefore, be decided soon after the first default, wherever it has occurred, to be discovered immediately. The, possibility of a controversy on this point continuing for years on end and also of continuing to remain a matter of dispute even in the higher forums will be obviated. The present case is an instance in point, wherein the controversy on this point has been agitated right up to this Court. This could easily have been obviated if the procedure being suggested above had always been in vogue.
14. In the conclusion, this appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
15. After the announcement of the above orders the appellant prayed for some time to remain in the premises so as to enable him to make alternative arrangements for his residence. The respondent agreed to grant the appellant spine respite, in case he agreed to vacate the premises voluntarily. The appellant gave an undertaking to this effect before us and promised that he would vacate the premises voluntarily and cause no problem in handing over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent by the 15th of April, 1983. He is, therefore, allowed to remain in the premises up to 15th April, 1983, provided he pays the rent for the said period in advance.