' This second appeal from order questions the order dated 9-9-2003 of a learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, affirming upon first appeal order dated 31-5-2003 of a learned Rent Controller whereby he proceeded to strike off the defence of the appellants and to direct him to deliver possession to the respondent of the premises in question.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that both the learned Courts below have committed an error of law as well as jurisdiction while passing and affirming the impugned ejectment order. According to the learned counsel, his client was directed to pay arrears on 31-5- 2003 and without giving them the benefit of the said entire day, the defence was struck off and ejectment was ordered. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the appellant has failed to comply with the mandatory terms of section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and his defence has been rightly struck off.
3. I have examined the certified copies of the records, appended with this second appeal from order, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. Now on 6-5-2003 the learned Rent Controller tentatively determined the rate of rent at Rs,5,000 per month and he directed the appellants to pay the rent at the said rate w.e.f, 1-4-2002, total amounting to Rs,65,000 on 31-5- 2003. On this date an application was filed before the learned Rent Controller stating that father- in-law of Haq Nawaz appellant died on 30-5-2003 and both the appellants had left Rawalpindi for their village to participate in the funeral proceedings and as such were not able to deposit the amount. In para.6 of the application it was categorically stated that they are ready to deposit the amount in the Court. However, the prayer made was that the time be extended. The learned Rent Controller, in the first instance, proceeded to hold that on 6-5-2003 he had directed the appellants to deposit Rs,65,000 till 31-5-2003 and they have not done so, therefore, he is striking off their defence and directing them to hand over vacant possession. After passing the said order, the learned Rent Controller took up the said application. He referred to his said detailed judgment and then proceeded to observe again that he had directed the appellants to deposit Rs,65,000 till today i.e, 31-5-2003 and they have failed to make the deposit. The application was rejected as according to him no plausible reason has been shown for extension of time.
4. The first appeal was filed and it was stated in detail that the said amount was to be deposited on 31-5-2003 and even if the learned Rent Controller was of the view that no extension was to be granted he was to direct them, in the first instance, to make the deposit on the same day which he has not done. It was duly complained that the learned Rent Controller has misread his own order dated 6-5-2003. Now the learned Additional District Judge, has expressed the view that the moment the order was passed, the appellants were under an obligation to make a deposit and this is what he has observed:-- "They have not given any reason as to why they failed to deposit such arrears in the treasury in 25 days, starting from 6-5-2003, they should have explained each and every day to show their entitlement for extension in time, but they have not done so. They have not deposited such arrears in the treasury even after 31-5-2003 uptil now."
5. To my mind the said observations are not only illegal but perverse. Now I may state here that the learned Additional District Judge has also faithfully stated that the appellants were directed to deposit the arrears of rent till 31-5-2003. I have already stated above that the learned Rent Controller had directed the appellants to deposit the amount on 31-5-2003,
6. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to controvert the position that the arrears were to be deposited as per direction of the learned Rent Controller on 31-5-2003 and not till 31-5-2003.
This means that the entire working day of 31-5-2003 was available to the appellants to make the said deposit. I find that 31-5-2003 was a Saturday which was a full working Court day. It is further evident on record that the learned Rent Controller after misreading his own order and assuming that the default has already occurred, proceeded hurriedly to strike off the defence without giving a chance to the appellants to make a deposit on the same day on which he has, in fact, ordered that they should make the said deposit.
7. I, therefore, find that both the impugned orders are not only against the law but are perverse and cannot he sustained. This second appeal from order is accordingly allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside. Now after adjusting any amount that might have been deposited by the appellants in Court, they shall make a deposit of Rs,90,000 being arrears of the rent from 1-4-2002 up to 30-9-2003 on or before 29-10-2003 with the learned Rent Controller. They shall further deposit future rent w.e.f, October, 2003 before the 15th day of each month following. In case they fail to make the said deposit or otherwise to comply with the order of deposit of future rent, the respondent shall be entitled to report the same to the learned Rent Controller whereupon he shall conduct proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
8. On the same date i.e, 29-10-2003 the parties shall appear before the learned Rent Controller/trial Court who shall requisition the records and conduct further proceedings pursuant to the framing of the issues by him and to see to it that the ejectment petition is decided before 30-4-2004 under intimation to the D.R. (J) of this Court. No orders as to 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.