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 Petitions Nos. 125, 126 and 127 of 1971, decided on 14th February, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23-12-1980 of the Lahore High Court in S. A. Os. Nos. 14,.15 and 16 of 1978).
S. 13(6) read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 11S-Estoppel- Failure of landlord to object to previous late deposit of rent -Did not preclude landlord from raising objection subsequently Generosity of landlord in not objecting to make deposit of rent previously, held, did not operate as estoppel---[Estoppel]
S. 13(6)-Deposit of tent, delay in-Civil Court Judges being always available even during disputed month and orders such as permission to deposit rent obtainable from them, contention that petitioners could not deposit rent for having entertained bona fide belief after close of summer vacations and not in disputed month-Held: Not correct and petitioners defence rightly struck off.
Mirza Hafeez-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all Petitions).
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 14th February, 1981.
This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 125, 126 and 127 of 1981, as they are directed against a common judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of the 1 Lahore High Court.
The petitioners in all these matters are tenants of shops owned by Haji Gbulam Sabir, respondent herein. An ejectment petition was filed against them in which an order of deposit of rent was made under sec tion 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The rent for the month of July, 1974, ought to have been deposited before the 15th of August, 1974, was not deposited until the 7th of September, 1974. The plea taken was that the non-deposit of the rent in the month of August, 1974, was not intentional but was on account of bona fide belief that since the civil Courts were closed on account of summer vacations, therefore, the deposit of rent in the month of August, 1974, would not be accepted. It was also submitted that previously also the petitioners were depositing the rent for the month of July of the years 1972 and 1973 in September, without any objection to the late deposit.
It has rightly been held by the Courts below that the failure of the landlord to object to the previous late deposit of the rent did not preclude him from raising the objection in 1974, as the generosity of the respondent in not objecting to the late deposit of the rent previously did not operate as an estoppel.
The other plea that as the civil Courts were closed on account of summer vacations in the month of August, the petitioners entertained a bona fide belief that they could deposit the rent in the month of September is without merit because it is conceded that some civil Court judges were always available even during the month of August and orders such as permission to B deposit the rent could be obtained from them. Be that as it may, the civil Courts re-opened on the 2nd of September, 1974, and the rent was not deposited immediately on the re-opening of the Court but 5 days later on the 7th of September, 1974. The order to strike off defence of the petitioners in these circumstances is not open to objection.
These petitions are dismissed.
However, as the petitioners are occupying shops in which they are doing business, three months' time is allowed to them to vacate the same, provided they continue to pay the rent and voluntarily surrender the possession on the expiry of the aforesaid period.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer