Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No. 803 of 1980, decided on 11th November, 1983.

-----S. 19 (2)‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S 12‑Application filed by tenant under S. 12, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959‑Notice issued to landlord allegedly refused‑Rent Controller passing ex parts order against landlord‑Application to set aside such order rejected by Rent Cc strol ler on ground of lack of jurisdiction in view of S. 19 (2), Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979‑Held, Rent Controller legally obliged to consider whether notice of main application was actually served on landlord and that he had failed to file written statement without sufficient cause‑Case remanded in circumstances.

Mashlakuddin v. Syed Ali Hyder 1982 S C M R 570 and Syed Ahmad Ali v. Muhammad Yaqoob 1983 C L C 1135 ref.

Syed Hassan Zafar for Appellant.

Mahmood Ahmed for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 11th December, 1983.

This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is directed against an order dated 26‑5‑1.980 passed by the learned IInd Controller, in Rent Case No. 4176/77, whereby he declined to consider an application for setting aside ex parte order on the ground that he was not competent to do so "in view of section 19 (2) of S. R. P. O., ]979". The impugned order was passed in the following circumstances :‑---

The Rent Case No. 4176/77 was filed on 29‑11‑1977. It was an applica tion under section 12 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Notice was issued to the other side. It was reported by the process server that the opponent in the proceedings, who is the appellant herein, had refused to accept the notice. The learned Controller, therefore, passed ex parte order on 1‑3‑1978. The appellant filed an application, on 17‑5‑1978, for setting aside the ex parts order. The learned Controller rejected the application by the impugned order dated 26‑5‑1980.

The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the application could not be rejected summarily on the ground that the Controller did not have jurisdiction to entertain it in view of the provisions of subsection (2) (misquoted by the learned Rent Controller as sub -rule (4) of section 19 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979), but the Controller should have considered whether the notice of the main applica tion was actually served on the opponent/landlord and he had failed to file written statement without sufficient cause. He has placed reliance on cases Mashlakuddin v. Syed Ali Hyder (1982 S C M R 570) and Syed Ahmad Ali v. Muhammad Yaqoob (1983 C L C 1135) which supports his contention. The learned Advocate for the respondent does not dispute the legal position expounded in the cases 'I mentioned above. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Controller for examining the question‑whether the notice of the main application had been duly served on the opponent/ landlord and he had failed to file written statement without sufficient cause and pass appropriate order on the application for setting aside the ex parte order.

M.B. A. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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