 |
| 2026 ylr 928 rent default |
⚖️ کرایہ کی عدم ادائیگی پر بے دخلی کی درخواست
📌 عدالتی حکم کی خلاف ورزی ثابت ہوگئی
🚫 رینٹ کنٹرولر وقت بڑھانے کا مجاز نہیں
⏳ ایک دن کی تاخیر بھی ڈیفالٹ شمار ہوگی
🏠 دفاع خارج اور بے دخلی کا حکم
⚖️ ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ
📍 اہم قانونی سبق
Must read judgment.
2026 Y LR 928
[Lahore]
Before Rasaal Hasan Syed, J
NASIR ISHAQ MALIK---Appellant
Versus
Ch. HASAN NAWAZ--Respondent
F.A.O. No.85740 of 2023, decided on 10th November, 2025.
Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)
---Ss. 17(9) & 24-Ejectment application---Rent Controller's order Controller's order for deposit of arrear of rent and future rent, non-compliance with-Effect---Eviction of tenant ordered---For eviction of appellant (tenant) on the grounds of default in payment of rent and expiry of lease a petition under $.17 of the Act, 1963, was moved by the respondent (landlord) claiming that appellant was a tenant in the rented premises who had committed default in payment of rent-After filing of reply to the application the Rent Controller vide order dated 02.11.2023 directed deposit of arrears of rent as well as future monthly rent pending decision of the ejectment petition---Later, on 29.11.2023, the respondent filed an application under subsection (9) of 5.17 of the Act asserting that the order for deposit of rent was not complied with and that in view of willful default the appellant was liable to forthwith eviction from the rented premises---Despite opportunities the appellant did not file his reply which right was closed and after hearing both sides the Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 07.12.2023, struck off appellant's right of defence and he was directed to vacate the premises and also pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 93,885/- per month with 10% annual increase---Validity---Perusal of record revealed that there was no compliance of order dated 02.11.2023 in respect of month of June, 2023, and non-deposit of rent for December 2023 therefore, the Rent Controller had no other option except to direct straightaway ejectment of the applicant in terms of S.17(9) of the Act---According to subsection (9) of $.17 of the Act, if the tenant fails to deposit the amount of rent before specified date or as the case may be before 5th of the month, his defence shall be struck off---On bare perusal of said provisions, it is manifested that the said provisions are mandatory in nature and even one day's delay in making the deposit would be default within its meaning and Rent Controller has no power to extend time and condone the same--In the instant case, there was no explanation for late deposit of rent for the month of June, 2023 or non-deposit of rent for the month of December, 2023--So much so, no reply to the application for striking off defence was filed by the applicant to explain the late deposit of rent for the month of December 2023---Thus, the order of Rent Controller was fair and just---Appeal being devoid of any merit was dismissed, in circumstances.
M. H. Mussadaq v. v. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and another her 2004 20 SCMR 1453; Misbaullah Khan v. Mst. Memoona Taskinduddin 1995 SCMR 287; Province of Punjab and others v. Muhammad Jalil-ur-Rehman 1986 SCMR 1705 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Muhammad
Bashir and others 1990 SCMR 557 rel.
Ms. Faiza Mustafa for Appellant.
Mushtaq Mehdi Akhtar for Respondent.
ORDER
RASAAL HASAN SYED, J.---This appeal under section 24 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 is directed against order dated 07.12.2023 of learned Addl. Rent Controller, Lahore Cantt. whereby the appellant's eviction was directed on account of non-compliance of order for deposit of rent under subsection (9) of section 17 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (the "Act").
ed 2. For eviction of appellant on the grounds of default in payment of rent and expiry of lease a petition under section 17 the Act was moved by the respondent claiming that appellant was a tenant in the rented premises who had committed default in payment of rent. After filing of reply to the application the learned Addl. Rent Controller vide order dated 02.11.2023 directed deposit of arrears of rent as well as future monthly rent pending decision of the ejectment petition. Later, on 29.11.2023 the respondent filed an application under subsection (9) of section 17 of the Act asserting that the order for deposit of rent was not complied with and that in view of willful default the appellant was liable to forthwith eviction from the rented premises. Despite opportunities the appellant did not file his reply which r hright was closed and after hearing both sides the learned Addl. Re ed Addl. Rent Controller at Controller vide impugned order utes appellant dated 07.12.2023 concluded that the rent for the month of June, 2023 was deposited on 20.11.2023 instead of 08.11.2023 while the rent for the month of December, 2023 had not been deposited, accordingly, the appellant's right of defence was struck off and he was directed to vacate the premises and also pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 93,885/- per month with 10% annual increase which
order is impugned in this appeal.
-
Heard.
-
Submissions made by learned counsel have been duly considered in the light of record available with this appeal and it is observed that for the reasons hereafter the appellant was liable to eviction on account of non-compliance of order of Addl. Rent Controller under subsection (9) of section 17 of the Act, under subsection (8) of section 17 of the Act provides that before issues are framed the Rent Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit in his office before specified date of the rent due from him and also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case case before 5th of each calendar month the monthly rent which subsequently become due and if there be any dispute as to the amount of rent, the Controller shall determine such amount approximately. Subsection (9) of section 17 of the Act mandates that if the tenant fails to deposit the amount of rent before specified date or as the case may be, before 5th day of the month, his application, if he is a petitioner shall be dismissed or his defence if he is respondent shall be struck off and the landlord shall be put in possession of the building without any further proceedings.