This FAO/85 arises from the order of Cantonment Executive Officer/Rent Controller whereby he on 14-2-1985 accepted the application of Malik Iftikhar Ahmad, respondent No,2, for the ejectment of M/s. Raja Industries Ltd. Appellant, from Shop No, 15-B, Aziz Shaheed Road, Sialkot Cantt.
The facts leading to this Appeal briefly are that Malik Iftikhar Ahmad filed an application for the ejectment of appellant from the shop situated in Cantonment area, before Cantonment Executive Officer/Rent Controller, respondent No,1, on the ground of personal need The learned Rent Controller passed following orders:- ' If Parties present with their counsels. The respondent is directed to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs,14,850 w.e.f, June (6/80) 1980 to 31-3-1982 i.e, Rs,675 P.M. On or before 25-4-1982 to go on depositing future rent before the 5th of each following month till the final decision of the case. Rent already deposited in the Court may be adjusted against the rent to be deposited. Case to come up for further procceedings on 29-4-1982."
' It so happened that on 10-10-1984 Malik Iftikhar Ahmad, respondent/applicant filed an application, before the Rent Controller for seeking struck off the defence of petitioner/Tenant for non- compliance with the order dated 8-4-1982, by not depositing the rent for the months of January 1983, July 1983, November 1983 and January 1984 before 5th of each month. This application was contested. The trial Court allowed this application on 14-10-1985 not on the grounds stated by the respondent No,2 in his application but on account of the petitioner's noncompliance of order dated 8-4-1982 to the extent of the deposit of the arrears of rent w.e.f, June 1980 to 31-3-1982. The operative part of the judgment may be reproduced here advantageously.
"According order dated 8-4-1982 was passed. The respondent has tried to adjust Rs,1,100 deposited by him in National Bank of Pakistan in the arrears. Section 17 (8) has particularly provided deposit of arrears and monthly rent in the office of the Rent Controller and not anywhere else. It is a settled law that when a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, all other modes of doing that thing shall be deemed to have been forbidden and therefore if a thing is done otherwise than required by law, the doing of that thing shall be invalid.
' In this view of the matter, amount of Rs,1,100 deposited by the respondent in National Bank is invalid as it has not been deposited in the office of the Rent Controller in the area where the disputed shop is situated. Therefore, the respondent has not deposited full amount of arrears in Court according to law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Sh. Maqbool Ahmad v. Muhammad Akbar Ali PLD 1978 Lahore 258 and Ghulam Muhammad and two others v. Mumtaz Ahmad and another 1984 MLD 210 to contend that deposit of the rent by the petitioner/tenant in the Bank will not constitute default within the meaning of section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment of the learned Rent Controller. He was of the view that the amount deposited by the petitioner/tenant in the Bank could not have been adjusted in terms of the order dated 8-4-1982 inasmuch as the Rent Controller had clearly stated in the order that the rent already deposited in the "Court" may be adjusted against the arrears of Rs,14,850.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. I find, that the reason given by the respondents for the striking off of the defence of the appellant/tenant that he had failed to deposit the future rent for the months of January 1983, July 1983, November 1983 and January 1984 before the 5th of each month, was not found correct by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has frankly conceded before me that the appellant/tenant had not committed any default in the future rent to be deposited by him before the fifth of each following month. However, he was of the view that since the learned Rent Controller had directed that the rent already deposited by the appellant/tenant in the Court may be adjusted against the arrears of rent amounting to Rs,14,850, therefore, the rent already, deposited by the appellant/tenant in the Bank could not be adjusted against the arrears Now the crucial question for consideration and determination is as to whether by adjusting the amount already deposited in the Bank against the arrears of rent, the appellant had/has complied with the order dated 8-4-1982? I find that the appellant had already deposited in Bank the amount adjusted by him against the arrears. So, his plea that instead of double deposit, he had adjusted the same against the arrears will be a good plea against the very order of the deposit under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963. So it is, at the worst, of a case of failure simpliciter without any implication of the fault and this may not be treated in the peculiar circumstances of this case as a "default". Reliance may be placed on Sh. Maqbool Ahmad v. Muhammad Akbar All PLD 1978 Lahore 258.
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, I hold that the appellant was not a defaulter in any manner and his defence could not be struck off. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted. The impugned order is set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Rent Controller for further proceedings in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own I costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.