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. 3‑R of 1974, decided on 21st March 1975.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 1‑11‑1974 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in S. A. O. No. 434 of 1966).
‑‑ S. 13‑‑Contention that practice grew up according to which petitioner tenant paid rents in lump sum every six months or one year neither pleaded by tenant in written statement nor proved‑Contract of such description, even otherwise, contrary to provisions of S. 13(2) and could not prevail.
‑‑ S. 13 ‑Benefit under S. 13‑Can be claimed only when case does not fall within mischief of S. 13(2).
Khawaja Muhammad Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Nazar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 21st March 1975.
‑The petitioner is a tenant, and he has been aggrieved by an order of ejectment passed against him on the ground of default in payment of rent.
The Rent Controller had found that the default was not deliberate, and accordingly exercised his discretion in favour of the tenant and disallowed ejectment.
The petitioner's contention has been that a practice grow up, and he paid rents in a lump sum every six months, or one year. He, however, failed to prove this practice, and this Is evident from the instances he gave at pages 25‑26 of the paper book.
The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the implied contract on the basis of the aforesaid practice was not pleaded by the petitioner in his written statement, and that in any event such a contract was contrary to the provisions of section 13(2) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), and, therefore, the former could not prevail over the latter. The petitioner has failed to controvert this legal position.
The petitioner claims benefit under section 13 of the said Ordinance, and he can, therefore, do so only if his case does nor fall within the mischief of section 13(2) of the Ordinance.
There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer