Find a Lawyer

(On appeal against the judgment and order dated 11‑4‑1977 of the High Court of Sind).

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)---

---Ss. 13 & 15(4)‑Eviction of tenant‑Limitation‑Tenant denying relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and such plea accepted by Rent Controller‑Appellate Court on appeal by landlord remanding case to Rent Controller, by order dated 13‑3‑73 and Rent Controller passing order for deposit of rent and eventually on non‑deposit of rent striking off tenant's defence on 4‑4‑1973‑High Court in second appeal holding appeal barred by time against order dated 13‑1‑1973 passed by first appellate Court‑High Court, held, perfectly justified in dismissing appeal as barred by time and tenant having failed to deposit rent as directed by Rent Controller his defence rightly struck off‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).‑.‑[Limitation‑Second appeal].

Akhtar Mahmood, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M. I. Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 13th September, 1978.

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.

‑The dispute between the parties is in respect of one portion of property No. F,/66‑1141,/Hyderabed which was leased out to him at a rent of Rs. 60 p. m. This property became evacuee property by order of this Court dated 8‑3‑1967. The respondent filed an application for the eviction of the petitioners vide his Application No. 45 of 1969 in February, 1969 in the Court of the Rent Controller and Civil Judge, Hyderabad on the ground of default since July, 1968 and personal bona fide requirements.

This application was resisted and the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This plea was accepted by the Rent Controller and he held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, by order dated 9‑12‑1971. The respondent challenged this order in Appeal No. 163/71 before the learned III Additional District Judge,. Hyderabad which was accepted on 13‑1‑1973 and the matter was remanded to the Rent Controller by order dated 13‑1‑1973. On remand. the learned Rent Controller passed an order for deposit of rent from July 1968 to February 1973 and by further ex parse order dated 4‑4‑1973 struck off the defence of the petitioner and directed him to vacate the property in dispute.

The matter was then taken to the High Court in Second Appeal No. 197 73 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court on 11‑4‑1977. He held that the appeal was barred by 92 days under section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the Order dated 13‑1‑1973 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, in Rent Appeal No. 163 of 1972 whereby he set aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 9‑12‑1971 dismissing the eviction application on the ground of absence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and remanded the case for decision on merits. This Order has been challenged in this petition for special leave to appeal.

In support of the petition Mr. Akhtar Mahmood, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the property has become evacuee property, and therefore, the order passed by the Additional Distt. Judge was void in law and any order which is void in law, can be challenged before the High Court irrespective of the fact whether it is within limitation or not.

The contention' of the learned counsel has not impressed us. In our opinion, the High Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by time. Besides, the petitioner has failed to deposit the rent as directed by the Rent Controller, and his defence has been struck off. He is not entitled to any relief. The petition is 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.