The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.36,000 has been deposited in Court as per directions contained in order dated 10-11-1992. The question as to whether or not the Rent Controller could direct deposit of arrears of rent for a period of five years require consideration.
2. Admit. Notice.
3. Ch. Abdul Rashid Cheema, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of contesting respondent.
4. There is a joint request by the parties that the point involved being short one and case may be heard and decided today.
MAIN CASE
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rent Controller vide order dated 11-10-1992 has directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent since December 1987, although he was not competent to pass an order for deposit of past rent beyond the period of three years from the date of the institution of the ejectment petition and in this manner at the most order for deposit of rent could have been passed since April, 1989. It is further submitted that the impugned order, in this view of the matter, is bad in law and liable to be struck down.
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 concedes this legal position. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 11-10-1992 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
The petitioner (tenant) has already deposited rent for a period of three years up to the date of the institution of the ejectment petition. Copy of the deposit receipt has been handed over to their learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Since it is a rent matter, the learned Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the main case expeditiously. No costs.