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.
SHAMROZ AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 183/P of 1982, decided on 19th December; 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 19‑10‑1982 in W. P. No: 249/82).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordi nance (VI of 1959), S. 1.3(2)‑Ejectment on ground of default in pay ment of rent‑Courts below holding that tenant in fact made default in payment of lease money and that deposit of amount subsequent thereto could not condone default‑Leave to appeal refused.
Tariq Jamal, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing :19th December, 1982.
‑Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 19‑10‑1982 in Writ Petition No. 249 of 1982.
2. Petitioners as tenants were ejected by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Dargai on the ground of non‑payment of arrears of lease money to respondent Dawa Khan in respect of crops of Rabi and Kharif, 1979, vide his order dated 15‑4‑1981. Petitioners filed appeal before the Collector, Malakand Agency which failed. A revision petition was then filed before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Malakand Division, Swat, who vide his judgment dated 28‑10‑1981 rejected the same. Petitioners then filed second revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, N: W. F. P. which also met the same fate. Finally, writ petition was filed in the Peshawar High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that earlier to the filing of ejectment proceedings they had offered to Dawa Khan respondent the lease money due but he refused to accept the same. Petitioners, therefore, applied on 19‑3‑1980 to the trial Court for permission to deposit the lease money which was allowed and they deposited the amount of Rs. 2,880 on 30‑4‑1980.
4. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that all the courts below held that the petitioners had, in fact, made default in the payment of lease money for the relevant period and the deposit of the amount subsequent thereto cannot condone the default. Thus the petition is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer