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. 209 of 1971, decided on 3rd December 1971.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 22nd September 1971, in S. A. O. No. 205 of 1971).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959),
S. 13(6)‑Tenant admitting execution of rent deed‑Relationship of tenant and landlord, in circumstance, established‑Default in depositing rent in compliance with order under S. 13(6)‑Controller, held, had no alternative but to direct delivery of possession:
Talat Farooq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court (Ihsanul Ilaq Choudhury, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Irshad Hasan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing :3rd December 1971.
In this leave petition the order of the Rent Controller directing deposit of arrears of rent under section 13(6) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordin ance, 1969 and his subsequent order of ejectment dated 22‑3‑1971, have been challenged as illegal.
It appears that the petitioner was originally a tenant of the disputed shop under the respondent's father Syed Khurshid Ali Shah. Upon Khurshid Ali Shah's death the petitioner executed a rent deed on 10‑4‑1970 in favour of the respondent, son of the said late Khurshid Ali and agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 160 p.m. The petitioner, who is present in person before us, has admitted the execution of the aforesaid rent deed but denied that he had agreed to pay rent at the said rate. It is thus evident that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been well established. The Rent Controller is, therefore, right when he said that the petitioner had admitted the tenancy. The petitioner having committed default in the payment of rent as ordered by the Rent Controller, the Rent Controller had no other alternative but to direct that the petitioner should put the respondent in possession of the disputed property. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
We have, however, allowed the petitioner two months' time to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession to the respondent without the aid of any process of Court. The petitioner should also pay rent to the respondent for these two months.
Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer