Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 13

Law: Court Fees (Amendment) Act, 1990

Section: 1 & Ss.28 & 10

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--

----S. 13---Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Schd. 1, Art. 1 & Ss.28 & 10- - Memorandum of appeal-- -Deficiency in court-fee--- Effect- --Appeal against the order of Rent Controler having force of decree was governed by Art. 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act and ad valorem court-fee was payable on the. subject-matter of the dispute ---Words "if he thinks fit" occurring in S.28, their significance and effect ---Such words give discretion to the Court in the matter- - Circumstances when exercise of discretion by Court in favour of defaulting party not considered proper--- Negligence and contumacy on the part of defaulting party disentitle him to exercise of discretion in his favour.

Under the law; a plaint or a memorandum of appeal cannot be considered to be properly filed as long as it does not bear the requisite court-fee on the amount of Rs.90,000 which was the value of the subject-matter of the dispute according to the tenant's own claim. According to the claim of the landlord, the value of the subject-matter was Rs.1,80,000. The tenant opted to pay Court-fee of Rs.15 only and did not make good the deficiency despite an objection raised by the landlord in that behalf. No application was made by the tenant, at any stage, during the pendency of the appeal for permission to make good the deficiency of the court-fee. Instead, the tenant hotly contested the landlords' objection to the deficiency of court fee. It was not a case involving wrong estimation of net profits or market value resulting in insufficient or excess payment of court-fee. Hence, the provisions of section 10 of the Court Fees Act were not relevant. Similarly, there was no mistake or inadvertence in filing the appeal with insufficient court-fee so as to entitle the tenant to exercise of discretion in his favour under section 28 of the Court Fees Act. It was a case in which the tenant consciously and deliberately chose to pay a court-fee of Rs.15 on the memorandum of appeal, which, according to the First Part of section 28 of the Act, was of no validity. Even if it is found that the memorandum of appeal was received by the Court through mistake or inadvertence, it was entirely for the appe late Court to order that the appeal be stamped with the requisite court-fee. The use of the words "if he thinks fit" gives discretion to the Court in the matter. In the present case, the Court took into account a l the relevant circumstances and did not think it to be a fit case for exercise of discretion in the matter of a lowing an opportunity to the petitioner to make good the deficiency in the court-fee. The discretion did not appear to have been exercised in an arbitrary or . capricious manner. Hence, no interference was ca led for in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court [p. 4] A