Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1506 of 1980, decided on 13th December, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 25‑10‑1980 in Writ Petition No. 7270 of 1968).

‑‑ S. 13(6)‑Default in payment of rent‑Striking off defence‑Counsel for petitioner leaving Court of Rent Controller for some time with permission but never coming back to find out orders passed in case -Case, held, one of clear negligence on part of counsel as well as client and Rent Controller fortified in striking off defence Leave to appeal. refused‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).

M. A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing :13th December, 1980.

,

‑Respondent/landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant/petitioner from the property in dispute. In that case the petitioner was required to deposit the arrears of rent and also the future rent but as this order was not complied with, the defence of the petitioner was struck off on 17‑9‑1978 and his eviction was ordered. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 2‑1‑1980. He filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 199/80, which however, abated on 25‑6‑1980 due to the change of the law on the subject.

2. At that stage the petitioner filed a constitutional petition being P. W. 7270/80 but without any success as the same was dismissed by the High Court on 25‑10‑1980. The petitioner has now come up in a petition for leave to appeal against that order to this Court.

3. The only point which was argued before the High Court by the petitioner was that the default in the deposit/payment of rent was not lawful inasmuch as his counsel before the Rent Controller had left the Court with his permission for sometime and for that reason the relevant order which was passed on the aforesaid date was not in the know, ledge of the petitioner. All the Courts below did not accept the plea as sufficient to take the petitioner out of his relevant liability and held that if the counsel concerned had left the Court for sometime it was duty to later find out as to what order had been passed in the case on that date. But as he never cared to so it showed a clear negli gence both on his part and as well as his client. Learned counsel ha argued that this view of the Courts below is not correct. We fin' nothing wrong either in principle or on the factual aspect of the case above mentioned.

4. The result is that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

5. The petition is dismissed.

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.