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. 74‑P of 1975, decided on 28th March 1975.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated the 20th day of September 1974, in S. A. O. No. 42 of 1972).
‑‑ S. 13‑1'Ejectment‑Mere refusal of landlord to accept rent tendered on an earlier occasion ‑Does not absolve tenant of his continued liability to tender same for each successive month.
Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th March 1975.
.‑This petition is barred by 56 days. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court, dated 20‑9‑1974, whereby the order of his ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the lower Appellate Authority was maintained, and the S. A. O. preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller on 28‑1‑1971 on ground of default in payment of rent. The alleged default per tained to the period from 1961 to 1964. The position taken up by the peti tioner seems to be that the respondent landlord was not prepared to accept the monthly rent of Rs. 5 originally fixed by the Custodian which he continued to remit by means of money orders, and demanded rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 20 per mensem.
3. On the point of default a consistent finding of fact has been given by the Courts below. It was also conceded before us by the learned counsel that although notice Exh. P. W. 3/ 1 was served upon the petitioner in. August 1969, calling upon him to pay up the arrears of rent yet m: payment was made or tendered by his client. It is well settled that the mere refusal Of the landlord to accept the rent tendered on an earlier occasion does not absolve the tenant of his continued liability to pay or tender the same for each successive month.
4. The petition is not only devoid of merit but is also barred by 56 days. No satisfactory explanation has been offered for the condonation the delay in filing the petition. It, therefore, merits dismissal even on ground of limitation and is according 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