Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 122 of 1978, decided on 18th November 1978.

(On appeal from the order dated 15th November 1978 of the Lahore High Court passed in S. A. O. No. 506 of 1978).

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑

----S. 5‑Condonation of delay‑Application for condonation of delay entirely vague, lacking in all particulars, and attempt made to make out a case of rent being not deposited because of circumstances beyond applicant's control and such plea appearing to be an after thought‑Explanation not accepted by Courts below and willful default concurrently held‑‑Defence, held, rightly struck off in circumstances‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance.

Zia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 18th November 1978.

‑The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order dated 15th October 1978, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby the Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner from the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore was dismissed.

The respondents herein filed an application in the Court of the Rent Controller, Lahore, against the petitioner praying for his ejectment from a shop situate in the Commercial Zone, Gulberg, Lahore, as he had failed to pay the rent. During the pendency of the ejectment proceedings the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 22‑3‑1977 passed under section 13(6) .of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, directed the petitioner to tender future rent of the property before the 15th of every month. The petitioner failed to deposit the rent for the month of April 1977, before or on the 14th of May as directed by the Rent Controller. This rent was actually deposited by the petitioner on the 16th of May 1977

In his defence the petitioner contended before the learned Rent Controller that the delay in the deposit was due to the circumstances beyond his control, viz. the imposition of curfew in the city of Lahore. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence available on record however struck off the defence of the: petitioner and ordered his eviction from the shop.

The petitioner's appeals in the Court of Additional. District Judge and the High Court failed.

In support of this petition the learned counsel has mainly urged that the circumstances which prevented the petitioner from depositing the rent in time were beyond his control. He contended that the cheque for the rent in question as prepared and delivered to one of his employees on 14‑5‑1977, who on hearing the rumour of re‑imposition of the curfew, instead of getting it encased, left for his house. Hence this was not a case of wilful default and the defence of the petitioner should not have been struck off.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has read before us the applica tion submitted for condonation of delay in depositing the rent within time. The application is entirely vague and lacks in all particulars, and the attempt made to make out a case that the rent could not be deposited because of the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner appears to be a afterthought. In any case, the explanation has not been accepted by the Courts below, which have concurrently held that the petitioner had com mitted default in the payment of rent, therefore, there was no alternative for the Rent Controller but to strike off his defence and pass the order of his eviction from the disputed shop. In this view of the matter, n ground for interference exists. This petition, accordingly, must fail and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is allowed two months time to vacate the shop in dispute, subject to his continuing paying rent before the 15th of each future month.

Petition 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.