Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 808 of 1974 and 203 of 1976, decided on 1st July 1976.

(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14‑6‑1974 and 27‑2‑1976 in S. A. O. No. 125 of 1974 and R. S. A. No. 73 of 1976 respectively).

---Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court‑‑Tenant's appeals dismissed by first and second appellate Courts as barred by time Petition fear leave to appeal also barred by 21 days‑Petitioner tenant appearing to adopt dilatory tactics to obstruct disposal of application for his eviction and actually succeeding in banging on to tenement for 5 years since eviction application filed‑No sufficient cause shown for default in appearance of petitioner nor any material placed ‑ on record to rebut grounds of his eviction in lower Court orders‑Leave to appeal refused‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restric tion Ordinance (VI of 1959). S 13.‑‑[Limitation].

Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, Advocate and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.

Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, Advocate‑an‑Record foe Respondents.

Date of hearing : 1st July 1976.

‑An order for eviction of the petitioner has been passed by the Rent Controller and maintained, on appeal, by the 1st Appellate Court and the High Court.,

At first the petitioner appealed against the order of the Rent Controller setting down the application for his eviction for ex parte proceedings on account of his repeated default in appearance. The appeal was dismissed on merits but an observation was made on the basis of which the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st Appellate Court against the final order of ejectment which was barred by 18 months. The District Judge dismissed the appeal both on merits and as barred by time. A further appeal from that order has been dismissed by the High Court on ground of delay of 18 months for which no sufficient cause was shown.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal on grounds which have little or no merit. Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 808 is also barred by 21 days. It appears that the petitioner has been adopting dilatory tactics to obstruct disposal of the application for his eviction. He has thereby succeeded in hanging on‑to the tenement for 5 years after the application for eviction was made.

On merits the petitioner has failed to make out a case for setting aside ex pane proceedings as no sufficient cause‑was shown for default in appear ance. As regards the petition directed against the final order of eviction, the petitioner has failed to place on the record any material to rebut the grounds on which the order of eviction is based.

Both the petitions for leave to appeal are, in consequence, dismissed,

Petitions 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.