Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑124 of 1969, decided on 8th January 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 16th September 1969, in Second Appeal No. 356 of ‑1969.)

S.30‑Notice‑Objection about notice under S. 30 raised for first time in High Court‑High Court, held, justifiably refused to allow raising of such: objection at that stage.

S. 30‑Notice‑‑House transferred to respondent in 1959 and let out, to petitioner in 1961 Petitioner, held, not in possession of house within meaning of S. 30 at time of transfer of property to respondent‑No notice under. S. 30, in circumstances, necessary.

S. 13‑A [inserted by West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (XXI of 1965)]‑Section. 13‑A has no retrospective effect‑Relief, held, could not be grant in terms of ATM tprovision to respect of ejectment application filed in 1963.

S. 13‑Ejectment‑Mere fact of dispute having been going on between landlord and tenant in Settlement Department‑No ground for condonation of default in paying rent.

N. A. Faruqi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Salahud din, Advocate on Record for Petitioner.

Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court in structed by Yousuf Rafi, Advocate on Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 8th January 1970.

The dispute between the parties is in respect of residential premises No. 713/1 G. M. Jamshed Quarters, Karachi. This property was transferred to respondent Mst. Amtul Batul in 1959, by the Settlement authorities and an appendix was issued to her. On the 30th January 1961, Mst. Amtul Batul let out this premises to the petitioner. at monthly rent of Rs. 250. It appears that the petitioner failed to pay the rent of the property in dispute from 1st July 1961 to the 31st December 1963 to the respondent. Consequently, the respondent filed an application for his ejectment before the Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller, by order dated the 29th April 1969, ordered his eviction. The First Appellate Authority also upheld this order by judgment dated the 9th July 1969, in Rent Appeal No. 258 of 1969. The matter was then taken to the High Court of West Pakistan and a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal summarily. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.

In support of the petition, Mr. N. A. Faruqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged three points. In the first place, he has contended that the petitioner could not be evicted from the premises in dispute as no notice was sent to him under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Secondly, he urged that section 13‑A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of 1959, was applicable to the facts of the present case and a relief should have been granted to the petitioner in terms of that provision of law. . Lastly, he urged that the learned Rent Controller has not exercised the discretion vested in him properly and it was a fit case in which the delay should have been condoned. None of the points urged by the learned counsel has any force. The objection about notice under section 30 was raised for the first time in the High Court. The learned Single Judge, in these circumstances, was perfectly justified in not allowing this objection to be raised for the first time before him. In any case, on the facts of the present case, no notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitations) Act, 1958, was necessary. The property in dispute was transferred to the respondent in 1959 and the petitioner was let out the premises in dispute in January 1961. The petitioner, therefore, was not in g possession of the property 'in dispute within the meaning of section 30 at the time of transfer of the property in dispute to the respondent.

Section 13‑A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, has also no application on the facts of the present case. The ejectment application was filed against the petitioner in 1963 while this particular provision of law came into force in 1965. On the language of this provision of law it cannot be applied retrospectively.

The last objection of the petitioner that the learned Rent Controller has not exercised the discretion vested in him properly is also not well founded. The petitioner is in arrears for more than two years of the rent. The mere fact that the dispute was going on between the parties in the Settlement Department is no ground to condone the default made by the petitioner. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.