' The petitioner being a tenant under the respondent was directed to deposit monthly rent at the tentative rate of Rs,1,000 regarding the house in question vide order dated 12-9-1995 passed by the Rent Controller. It was directed in the order that the petitioner shall deposit the arrears of rent at the aforesaid rate from April, 1994 to September 1995 before the next date 9f hearing i,e,, 2-10-1995 .And shall continue to deposit future rent before 15th of each succeeding month. The petitioner did not comply with the order, whereupon a petition under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was moved on 3-10-1995 by the landlady respondent, to strike off the defence of tenat/petitioner. A notice in this petition was issued for 11-10-1995. The petitioner/tenant took up the plea that actually monthly rent was Rs,300 and according to the latest assessment by the Excise and Taxation Authorities, it was Rs,500. It was denied that the rent was ever settled at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month as alleged in the ejectment petition. It was further contended that order dated 12-9-1995 was initially void as it was passed on the misconception that the petitioner had admitted the rate of rent as Rs,1,000 in the written statement. Besides, a plea was raised that the petitioner was taken ill and was admitted to a private hospital from where he was discharged on 6-10-1995 and as such had no knowledge of order dated 12-9-1995, whereby the tentative monthly rent was fixed. It was, therefore, alleged that since order dated 12-9-1995, was void ab initio, therefore, the default flowing from it was not tenable under the law. However, the plea of petitioner was not accepted and his ejectment was directed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 15-10- 1995. An appeal against that order was filed, which was dismissed by Rana Zahid Mehmood, learned Additional District Judge, Kasur vide order dated 20-12-1995. It was held in appeal that the petitioner had committed wilful default as he had failed to comply with the order of learned Rent Controller and that he also failed to comply with the order passed under section 15(5) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance during the pendency of appeal.
3. In this writ petition the orders of learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Court aforementioned are challenged on the ground that the impugned orders were not sustainable in the eye of law as initially order dated 12-9-1995 was void ab initio having been based on misreading of written statement, whereby it was never admitted that the rate of rent was Rs,1,000 per month. Secondly, it was submitted that the petitioner had contended in written statement that an advance of Rs,20,000 was given to the landlady for repair of the house, but the same was not carried out nor the amount was refunded. Therefore, there was no default at all.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlady contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had challenged order dated 12-9-1995 in W.P. No,13075/95, but the same was dismissed in limine. However, this fact was not mentioned in this petition, which amounted to suppression of material facts and as such the petitioner was not entitled to discretionary relief because he had approached the Court with soiled hands. The previous writ petition having been dismissed on 1-10-1995, the petitioner/tenant failed to deposit the rent as directed by the Rent Controller and as such the default had become patent on its face. It was contended on merits that the respondent/landlady had demanded Rs,1,000 as monthly rent vide paragraph 2 of her ejectment petition but in the written statement the petitioner/tenant put up a total denial, though evasively. It was, however, contended in reply to the application moved under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance that the monthly rate of rent was Rs,300 at the time of start of tenancy, which according to Excise and Taxation Authorities came to Rs,350 on 1-7-1989 and thereafter it had become Rs,500 and that it was never Rs,1,000. However, it was neither stated in the written statement nor in reply to the aforesaid application as to what was the actual rent, which was being paid by the tenant to the landlady. In such a situation, the learned Rent Controller had correctly fixed the tentative rent as Rs,1,000 per month vide order . Dated 12-9-1995 and its violation rightly culminated in striking off the defence of petitioner/tenant. It was, therefore, alleged that the concurrent findings on the question of fact cannot be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction, which can only be upset if such findings are without jurisdiction, arbitrary or capricious. Since the petitioner/tenant had been evasive to spell out correct rate of rent, therefore, the tentative rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller was allegedly correct and legally maintainable.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the tentative rent fixed by the Rent Controller had not legal basis because monthly rent at the rate of Rs,1,000 was never admitted in the written statement. It was further contended that the rent at the alleged rate was totally denied in corresponding paragraph 2 of the written statement and as such the learned Rent Controller should have fixed the tentative rent at the rate of Rs,300, which was actual rent settled at the time of execution of rent deed. It was, therefore, alleged that since order dated 12-9-1995 was based on misreading of written statement, therefore, all the subsequent orders based on it would crumble down.
6. I have considered the arguments and have also gone through the record. First of all I would like to say that the petitioner approached this Court by suppressing the fact that a writ petition regarding fixation of tentative rent was filed and the same was dismissed in limine by this Court.
The equity and decency of the legal norms required that such a material fact should 'have been given in the present writ petition so as to avoid any misleading judgment. However, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the opposite-party that the petitioner had already unsuccessfully challenged the tentative fixation of rent through a writ petition aforementioned and as such having not approached this Court with clean hands, the present writ petition was not maintainable. It is settled law that the writ jurisdiction is based on equity and good conscience. If a party A comes with unclean hands it should not be granted any legal indulgence.
' The instant case cannot be treated as an exception to the above rule. On this premises alone the writ petition would be considered not maintainable.
7. Even on merits, the petitioner/tenant remained waivering and never came up with clear contention regarding the rate of rent. Even till today, it has not been claimed as to what is correct rate of rent, which he has been paying to the respondent/landlady. He has been only setting up vacillating pleas that the rent was actually fixed as Rs,300 per month at the time of execution of rent deed on 9-7-1979.- However, the rate of rent was shown as Rs,350 or Rs,500 as subsequent years in the record of Excise and Taxation Department and as such it was claimed that the rent was never fixed at Rs,1,000 nor the same Was admitted to be correct. However, as stated above the petitioner never clearly stated as to what was the correct rate of rent; which he was paying to. The landlady/respondent. This shows that the petitioner was approbating and reprobating at the same time regarding rate of rent and in such a situation, the learned Rent Controller had rightly fixed the tentative rent of Rs,1,000 per month, which was claimed by. The landlady, and under the circumstances does not appear to be arbitrary or fanciful. Its violation clearly attracted the provisions contained in section 13(6) of. The Rent Restriction Ordinance and the defence of the petitioner was rightly struck off. Mere fact that the petitioner had alleged in reply to the application for striking off defence that he was taken ill and remained admitted in a private clinic would not absolve him of his liability to pay the rent fixed by the Rent Controller within the period specified by him. Anybody on his behalf could deposit that rent as held in Pir Inayat Shah. v. Agha Muhammad (1982 SCM R 1195). Likewise striking off defence of the tenant was justified one it was found that the order of Rent Controller requiring deposit of arrears and future rent was not complied with.
Reference to Syed Muhammad Zaman. v. Abdul. Khaliq (1991 SCM R 1982) would support the proposition. Similarly failure of the tenant/petitioner to deposit future rent as directed by the Appellate Court also invokes the same principle. Delay in depositing the rent of two days in the Appellate Court alio remained unjustified and as such principle laid in Muhammad Yousaf. v.
Muhammad Bashir and others reported in (1990 SCM R 557) will be .Attracted to the case in hand.
8. In view of my above discussion I do not find any plausible Justification nor there is any patent or latent illegality in the impugned orders calling for interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The cost to follow the event. #EndJudgment