MUHAMMAD ISHAOUE KHAN, J.-Aqil Khan and Bostan Khan filed an ejectment petition against Salahuddin, Mansooruddin, ' Zahceruddin, Chiraghuddin and Shahabuddin under Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for the ejectment from a shop bearing No.440/321 (T-134) situated in Kucha Telyan Kohat City on the sole ground of personal need. The tenants-respondents contested the petition by filing their written statement whereafter the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 18-2-1988 directed them to deposit Rs.2,000 as future rent of the suit property before 15th of each month till the decision of the case. The tenants-respondents, however submitted an application to the Rent Controller to review the order regarding rate of rent. After hearing the parties the learned Rent Controller reviewed his order dated 18-2-1988 to this extent that he fixed Rs.1,000 instead of Rs.2,000 as tentative rent per month vide order dated 2-3-1988 with the direction that the rent of Rs.2,000 already deposited by the tenants-respondents was to be adjusted towards the rent for the months of February and March, 1988 and further directed the tenants-respondents to deposit future rent at tentative rate i.e. Rs.1,000 per month. On 11-6-1988 the landlords submitted an application for striking off the defence of the tenants-- respondents on the ground that they did not deposit the rent for the month of April, 1988 before 15th of May, 1988 and have thus violated the orders of the Court. The learned Rent Controller after hearing the parties struck off the defence of the tenants- respondents and passed an order of their eviction from the suit premises. Dissatisfied with this order the tenants-respondents filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Kohat but the same was also dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court vide order dated 15-1-1989. The tenants --respondents have now invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that both the learned Rent Controller as well as Additional District Judge have failed in the exercise or their jurisdiction by ignoring the provisions of subsection 2(1) of section 13 of the Ordinance which are to be read together with subsection (6) of that Section. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 herein submitted that in fact section 13(6) is only applicable in the case in hand and that section 13(2)(1) is a ground for ejectment which cannot be read together with section 13(6) of the Ordinance. On the basis of an authority reported in Khan Ahmad 1 Chauhan v. Sheikh Abdul Majid 1979 CLC 770, we find that the contention of the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 holds water. It has been held in the said I authority as under:- "S. 13(6)--Application of--Proposition that S.13(6) applies only when rent ' A falls in arrears; -Not correct--Section 13(6), held, applies to every case falling under S.13 even though direction be only for deposit of future rent."
Therefore, we hold that both the lower forums have acted properly and in accordance with law.
3. It is the stand taken by the petitioners herein that they had deposited the rent for the month of April, 1988 on the 15th of May, 1988 under the advice of their counsel but we have not come across any explanation on the part of the petitioners as to why they kept waiting till 15th of the said month when they had full 14 days at their disposal and why they were specifically waiting for the last date.
1982 SCMR 392 is a direct authority on the point which runs as under:- "S.13(6)--Default in payment of rent--Striking off defence---Petitioner/tenant seeking condonation of delay on ground of rent having been deposited only one day after time fixed-- Held: Petitioner having been given full one month or at least 15 days to deposit rent of previous months, delay in fact much more than one day--Striking off defence being a matter of discretion with Rent Controller, interference declined."
Similarly, the learned counsel for the petitioners, who conducted their case in the lower Court, has not uttered a single word in support of the stand taken by the petitioners. 1982 CLC 1108 is to the same point which lays down:- "Ss. 13(6) & 15--Defence, striking off--Tenant depositing rent for months of March, April and June, 1979 on 15th April, 1979, 15th May, 1979 and 15th June, 1979--Rent Controller striking off defence of tenant as rent not deposited before 15th of subsequent month--Contention that violation cannot be considered deliberate or wilful but due to confusion about last date for depositing rent and mistake unintentional and bona fide, held, had no force--Appeal dismissed in circumstances of case.
We have also another authority in support of our view reported as "Kaley Khan v. Jamia Masjid Akse Jamil (Registered) Samanabad Lahore etc. 1981 CLC 921. The dictum laid down therein runs as follows:- "S. 13(6) and Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts.185 & 199--Default in compliance with order a/s 13(6) as a result of negligence of tenant's counsel--Order of Rent Controller striking off tenant's defence on ground of such default--Unexceptionable--High Court dismissing tenant's writ petition failed to assail lawfulness of orders of Rent Controller and appellate authority--Supreme Court maintaining order of High Court and dismissing tenant's leave petition".
As such, we are firm in our view that the orders of striking off defence passed by the two forums below are perfectly legal and correct.
4. Now we come to the legal aspect of the case. The petitioners have admittedly failed to deposit the rent for the month of April, 1988 before the 15th of May, 1988 and instead they had deposited the same on the 15th of May, 1988, therefore, the Rent Controller has rightly struck off the defence of the petitioners herein. The discretion exercised and order passed by the lower forums gets support from a number of authorities on the point and we would like to refer to some authorities out of the same. In a case reported in Hafiz Abdullah v. Haji Khuda Bux PLD 1964 (W.P.) Karachi, 211, it has been held as under:- "(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13(6)--Tenant--Pending proceedings, failing to deposit monthly rent after direction by Court to do so--Landlord taking objection at earliest opportunity--Rent Controller has no option but to strike off defence and order ejectment of tenant."
The next authority has been reported as Muhammad Jan v. Khadim'Hussain 1973 SCMR 243 wherein their Lordships have observed as under:- "S. 13(6)- Default in depositing monthly rent by due date--Tenant seeking permission from Court, for depositing rent, late in day with consequence that by time he reached Bank to deposit amount banking hours were over--Default thus committed, held, due to negligence and defence therefore rightly struck off."
Next authority is reported as Ch. Muhammad Siddique v. Mohammad Rashid PLD 1979 Lahore 273 with the following dictum:- " S. 13(6)--Future rent directed to be deposited before 15th of month coming immediately after month for which rent due--Failure to make deposit before 15th--Held, entails striking off of defence and passing of order of ejectment of defaulting tenant--Tenant depositing rent on 15th---Nothing to show that delay of one day was due to any reason beyond control of tenant-Such tenant cannot avoid legal consequences of his failure to comply with direction of Rent Controller.
The last but not least is reported in Mohammad Anwar v. Abdul Shakoor 1982 SCMR 1120 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court are of the view that:- "S. 13-Default in payment of rent---Striking off defence-Appellant not controverting that order of Rent Controller dated 16-12-1966 to pay arrear of rent and future rent attained finality--Appellant failing to pay rent from 1-1-1968--Rent Controller, held, left with no alternative but to strike off appellant's defence".
5. We, while in respectful agreement with the above cited authorities, are of the view that the order of striking off defence of the petitioners passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge is not open- to interference in this Constitutional petition, with the result that this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioners are directed to put respondents 3 and 4 herein in possession of the suit premise: within 2 months from today..