Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 555 of 1981, decided on 1st March, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 14 & 15 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, r. 3‑Ejectment sought on various grounds including default‑ Application admitted under S. 15 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 though grounds available in S. 14 thereof also pleaded in application‑Original applicant dying and application of legal representatives rejected by Rent Controller on grounds that ejectment application did not survive death of original applicant as same was filed under S. 14‑Ejectment having been sought on grounds including default‑‑Application of legal representatives, in circumstances, held, maintainable‑Order of Rent Controller set aside and case remanded for disposal on merits after permitting appellants' legal representatives to be substituted as applicants.

Syed Iqbal Ahmed for Appellants.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 1st March, 1983.

The above appeal was called thrice times since morning, but still neither the learned Advocate for the respondent nor respondent is present. In addition to this, there is no request for adjournment made on behalf of the respondent and/or his Advocate, and as such I decided to hear the above appeal on merits. The learned Advocate for the appellants sub mitted. that the learned Rent Controller rejected appellants, application under Order XXII, rule 3 read with section 151, C.P.C, on the grounds, that the ejectment application did not survive the death of the original applicant, as it was filed under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, in spite of the fact, that the original ejectment application was filed under section 15 of the said Ordinance and admitted as such according to this endorsement, on the original ejectment application.

The learned Advocate for the appellants have pointed out to me the original ejectment application in the original Rent Case No. 391/80 and the office endorsement thereon, clearly shows, that it was admitted under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, although the ground available under section 14 of the said Ordinance was also pleaded, in the said application. In view of this admitted position on record, the dismissal of appellants' application under Order XXII, rule 3 read with section 151, C.P.C. vide order, dated 19th August, 1981 of the learned Rent Controller cannot 1 e sustained. It is now established law, that the Provisions of Order XXII, C. P. C. are applicable to the rent proceedings and since the original ejectment application was admitted under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, in my opinion the appellants' application under Order XXII, rule 3 read with section 151, C. P. C. was maintainable and ought to have been allowed by the learned trial Court, as ejectment of the respondent was sought on various grounds, including one for default.

In view of my above conclusions I allow the above appeal and set aside the impugned order, dated 19th August, 1981 and allow the appellants' application under Order XXII, rule 4 read with section 151, C.P.C. and remand back the case to the Court of the learned Rent Controller in question for disposal on merits, in accordance with law, after permitting the appellants to be substituted as applicants, in place of original applicant.

Since the learned Advocate for the respondent is called absent, I passed no order as to cost.

A. B. Appeal 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.