Defining “Default” in Rent Payment and Tenant Protections

Panel: Riaz Ahmad, J.

This case, Writ Petition No. 5577/B of 1987, decided on August 25, 1987, involved Abdul Hamid and another as Petitioners against Muhammad Rafiq Chaudhry and 2 others as Respondents. The primary issue before the court was the interpretation of “default” in rent payment under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, in the context of ejectment proceedings. The court emphasized that the word “default” implies a willful failure or refusal to pay rent. If a landlord makes it impossible for the tenant to pay rent, such as by refusing to accept it, the tenant cannot be considered in default. In this case, the landlord’s absence abroad unsettled the usual mode of rent payment. The tenants took diligent steps, including sending a bank draft, which the landlord refused. The court noted that the landlord’s refusal to accept a lump sum payment, necessitated by his absence, and his sometimes requiring deposits in the bank, did not constitute a default on the tenant’s part.

The court further highlighted that, in the absence of a rent deed, default would occur only if the rent was not paid within sixty days of it falling due, as per Clause 2(i) of Section 13 of the Ordinance. The court also considered the landlord’s bona fides in seeking eviction for reconstruction, finding it questionable given his history of similar applications against other tenants and his intention to sell the property. The previous orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, which upheld the ejectment, were found to be without lawful authority because they had not properly appreciated and analyzed the question of default in accordance with the law. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned orders and ruling in favor of the tenants.

Download PDF