Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 42 of 1968, decided on 20th June 1968.
(on appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 15th January 1968, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 1(0 of 1968 in Second Appeal from Order No. 395 of 1966).
S. 15 (4)‑Pending second appeal High Court granting ad interim stay and subsequently vacating order on finding that appellant was refusing payment of rent to his landlord‑Stay, held, rightly vacated‑Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Z. Khalil, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 20th June 1968.
The only question raised in this petition for special leave to appeal is as to whether a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan was justified in vacating an order of ad interim stay.
Since before 1958 the Petitioner, Jamaluddin, was in posses sion of shop No. L, Sarbland Block, Azam Cloth Market, Lahore, which was an evacuee property. Eventually, the said shop was transferred by the Settlement Department to Nighahia, respon dent No. 1, and Bagh Din, respondent No. 2, in equal shares. As even after due notice Jamaluddin failed and neglected to pay rent to Nighahia for his half share of the shop, he filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of 1959, but the same was dismissed by the Rent Controller. On appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed the order of the Rent Controller and ordered for ejectment of Jamaluddin. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, while admitting second appeal filed by Jannaluddin, granted (In ad interim stay, but on the final hearing of the stay petition the said ad interim order was vacated. Jamaluddin now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.
The learned counsel has contended that as no ground for default in payment of rent was raised before the Rent Controller, the learned Single Judge was not justified in entering into that question. Before the learned Single Judge the petitioner admitted that he was paying rent to one Moodi, who had entered into an agreement to purchase the said shop from Bagh Din. It is therefore, obvious that he was not paying rent to the landlord. The learned Judge, therefore, rightly observed that payment of rent to Moodi could not absolve the petitioner from his liability to pay rent to the landlord. In these circumstances, the learned Judge was justified in vacating the ad interim stay. We, therefore, see no ground for interference and dismiss this petition.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer