MIAN AURANGZEB NOOR versus RENT CONTROLLER, LAHORE
Section 13 (2) Civil Procedure Code (V8 1908), O XVII, R3 Constitution Pakistan, Article 199 Constitution Petition The tenant (applicant) revoked the rent controller's order, under which, the non-proof of proof Their defense was terminated because of Kush. The property tenant has repeatedly sought adjournments for witness testimony and adopts complex tactics such as changing a lawyer and filing miscellaneous petitions, despite numerous opportunities to present evidence and to be given by the rent controller. Despite the last warning, the evidence was not presented and the rent controller terminated the tenant's defense for non-production of evidence, therefore, the West Pakistan Citizen Rent Restriction was provided to the tenant in accordance with the provisions of section 13 (2) of the Ordinance 1959. Appropriate opportunities were provided and the rent controller could not. When a dispute between the landlord and the tenant is required, wait indefinitely for the tenant to present as much evidence as possible to avoid delays in dealing with the matter provided by the Supreme Court guidelines. Accordingly, the High Court observed that not only the matters were resolved as soon as possible, though the rent controller was not obliged to follow the CPC, he did comply with it to a great extent. Despite the warnings and penalties, the provisions of Rule 3 of the CPC, Rule 3 of the CPC, did not present evidence, the constitutional application was dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
