Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. K‑247 of 1981, decided on 30th January, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sind, Karachi dated 16‑11‑1981 in Constitution Petition No. 482 of 1972).

‑‑ S. 17‑Ejectment---Concurrent findings of Rent Controller and District Judge, not suffering from any legal defect nor decision of High Court in exercise of discretionary power shown to be patently wrong Rent Controller after being satisfied that tenant was intentionally delaying process of Court proceeding against him ex party‑Held, no justification for Supreme Court to interfere with order of ejectment.

Abdul Fateh Memon, Advocate instructed by A. Aziz Dastgir Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 30th January, 1982.

‑Abdul Majid petitioner has submitted this civil petition for special leave to appeal under Article 185 (3) of the Cons titution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Sind in Constitution Petition No. 482 of 1972.

2. The petitioner was the tenant of the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 in a house described in the petition. The respondents moved a petition before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad Cantonment in May, 1968, seeking the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The case was adjourned on several dates because the petitioner would not appear and attend the hearing nor he filed his written statement, although in this petition he states that he had been attending the hearings, but it is not borne on record. An ex party order of ejectment was con sequently passed against the petitioner. He then filed an application under Order IX, rule 13, C. P. C., which was dismissed. He then filed an appeal be fore the District Judge, which was entrusted to Additional District Judge, who dismissed it, but later in the Constitution Petition No. 287 of 1970 an objection was taken that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction under the said Act. The petition was allowed and the case was directed to be heard by the District Judge, Hyderabad himself and the appeal was to be treated as pending. Later when the appeal was heard the District Judge dismissed it on 20‑9‑1972. The petitioner then submitted a Constitution Petition No. 482 of 1972 in the High Court of Sind at Karachi on the ground that the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge were illegal ultra vires and without lawful authority, hence inoperative and of no legal effect. The High Court dismissed that petition on 16‑11‑1981 and the petitioner has now moved this Court through this petition seeking leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, failed to convince us that the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the District Judge suffered from any legal defect or that the decision of the High Court in the exercise of its discretionary power in dismissing the writ petition was patently wrong. It appears that no specific allegation with regard to mala fide had at any stage been made. The fact that the hearing was adjourned on several occasions during the period of more than a year because the present petitioner failed to appear or file written statement is not disputed. The Rent Controller being fully satisfied that petitioner was intentionally delaying the process of the Court and was not appearing to be heard had no option to proceed against him ex parte. We find no mistake in the conclusion of the Rent Controller or that of District Judge. Apart from that the High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction declined to render any relief to the petitioner. There appears no justification for us to interfere. . This petition is, therefore, dismissed.

S. Q. 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.