Find a Lawyer

Respondents

Writ Petition No. 2973 of 1982, decided on 10th January, 1983.

‑ S. 13 (2) (i)‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9 Eviction‑Default‑Tenant tendering rent through nephew of landlord by means of a cheque but not verifying from bank as to whether same was encasihed within time nor depositing amount before due date Tenant, held, committed default‑Default once occurred and there being no reason for condonation cannot be wiped away even by subsequent deposits of amount made before filing ejectment petition.

Shabbir Ahmad v. Mst. Kabir‑un‑Nisa and others P L D 1975 S C 58 ; Muhammad Yunus v. Abdul Hamid P L D 1975 Lah. 1326 and Haji Fida Hussain v. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan 1972 S C lb1 R 262 ref.

(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑

‑‑ S. 13 (2) (i)‑Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9 Eviction‑Default‑Mere fact that tenant quite old and had been paying regular rent of premises to landlord, held, does not absolve tenant from making payment of rent of a particular month before due date.

(c) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑

‑‑ Art. 9‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (2) (i)‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑Finding of Additional District Judge rejecting evidence of witness ‑Cannot be set aside in writ jurisdiction‑‑Even if impugned order passed by him, held, to be erroneous same cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdic tion.‑[Jurisdiction).

Muhammad Sharif v.Muhammad Afzal Sohail P L D 1981 S C 246 ref.

(d) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑

‑ S. 13 (2) (i)‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Eviction‑Default ‑ Petition against finding of Additional District Judge that petitioner committed default in payment of rent without merit‑Petition dismissed.

Shahid Hamid for Petitioner.

Kh. Muhammad Tufail for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing ; 19th December, 1982.

This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 2973 and 2974 of 1982 as the same arise out of a similar impugned orders passed by the respondent No, I in these cases.

2. Nasir Malik petitioner herein, is the son of Mst. Bibi Noor Fatima, petitioner in the connected petition. Muhammad Hafeez respondent No. 2 is the landlord of two flats Nos. 6 and 8 in house No. 69, Arya Nagar Scheme, Poonch Road, Lahore which are occupied by the petitioners, respec tively as tenants under him. Nasir Malik petitioner had been paying monthly rent of the flats Nos. 6 and 8 to. the landlord. On 28‑2‑1980 Muhammad Hafeez instituted two ejectment petitions against the petitioners on the around that they defaulted in making payment of rent for the months of November and December, 1979 and January, 1980. The ejectment petitions were resisted by the petitioners which led to framing of following issues, in each case.

(1) Whether the respondent has committed default in the payment of rent OPP

(2) Relief. .

The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 7‑7‑1981 dismissed the applications. Those orders were assailed in appeals. The appeals were accepted vide the impugned orders dated 3‑7‑1982, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Additional District Judge has erred to hold that the petitioners had committed default in making payment of rent, for the disputed period. It was conten ded that the tenancy being oral the alleged default in payment of rent for the months of December, 1979 and January, 1980 was not committed by the petitioners. It was also submitted that for the month of November, 1979 the petitioners tendered the amount through cheques to the respondent No. 2.

He did not get those encashed. The petitioners after issuing notice to him deposited the same in the treasury before the institution of the ejectment petitions. It was further contended that the learned Additional District Judge has ignored the service of notice. by the petitioners on the respondent No. 2 and also the factum of depositing the rent before the ‑Ejectment petitions. It was also stated that the petitioners are old tenants of the disputed property for the last many years and had never committed default in payment of rent to the landlord. It was next submitted that the ejectment petitions have been filed by the respondent No. 2 on account of annoyance felt by him by the fact that the wife of the petitioner was cited as witness in a criminal case regis tered against the respondent No. 2 at the instance of Mst. Sanober Begum, another occupant of the building. It was lastly contended that the mode of tendering rent provided under Explanation (ii)' to subsection (2) of section 1:3 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is not the exclusive mode; the tender of rent made by means of cheque is also valid tender. It is contended that the learned Additional District Judge has misread the provisions of the law and referred Shabbir Ahmad v. Mst. Kabir‑un‑Nisa and others (1) m support of his contention.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, argued that these Constitutional petitions are not maintainable in view of latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court reported as Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Afzal Sohail (2). It is stated that the learned Additional District Judge did not rely on the statement of Maqsood Ahmad, a nephew of the respondent No. 2 who appeared as witness for the petitioners and against his uncle. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners bad given no reasonable explanation as to why they did not tender the cheques in

(1) P L D 1975 S C 58

(2) P L D 1981 S C 246

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.