Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, dated the 12th January 1970, in Second Civil Appeal No. 570 of 1969).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 58(3)‑Contention not raised before High Court‑Not allowed to be raised during proceedings for leave to appeal before Supreme Court.

(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959),

S. 13 (2)(vi) & 13(2)(i)‑Ejectment application on ground mentioned in S. 13(2)(vi) allowed‑Pending appeal against order of ejectment fresh application for ejectment on ground of non payment of rent under S. 13(2)(i) not barred.

Abul Fazal Mohammad Mukarrim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 20th August 1970,

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑

This order will dispose of Civil petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. K‑36, K‑37 and K‑38 of 1970 in which common question of law is involved.

The dispute between the parties is in respect of a building known as Aulia Building, situated at Burns Road, Karachi. The petitioners in all the cases are tenants of the respondents on monthly rent basis. Respondents filed ejectment applications against the petitioners, in May 1965 on the ground of reconstruction of the property in dispute. In the meanwhile, the petitioners fell into arrears of rent and the respondents filed other ejectment applications in December 1965 on the ground of non‑payment of rent. These applications were heard by the Third Civil Judge and Rent Controller at Karachi and were allowed on the 29th November 1969. Appeal against this order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi on the 16th October 1969. Second Appeal filed in the High Court was dismissed on the 12th January 1970, by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The petitioners have challenged these orders in these petitions for special leave to appeal.

Mr. Abul Fazal Mohammad Mukarrim, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that as the petitioners have already been ordered to be ejected in previous rent proceedings on the ground of reconstruction against which Second Appeal No. 114 of 1968 is pending against the respondents in the High Court, the subsequent applications filed by them were not maintainable and had become infructuous. This contention was not raised before the High Court. We are, therefore, not inclined to allow it to be raised before us in these petitions for special leave to appeal. In any case, there was no bar for the second application to be brought against the petitioners on a different cause of action. There is no force in these petitions which are dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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