Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal from Original Order No. 658 of 1976, decided on 29th January, 1983.

‑‑‑ Ss. 13 (2) & 15 (4)‑‑Default in payment of rent‑Tenant occupying only one room out of six inclusive amenities‑‑Could not be burdened with more than what is due from him according to latest municipal assessment‑Rent Controller not applying mind to facts of case in a judicious manner and first appellate Court also misdirecting itself in not appreciating pleas of parties in their proper perspective‑Order of. Courts below set aside and case remanded to Rent Controller for trial afresh in accordance with law.

Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 29th January, 1983.

This S. A. O. has been filed by the tenant‑appellant against the order of a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 31st July, 1976 whereby the findings of the Rent Controller on the ground of default were upheld and eviction of the appellant was ordered from the house in dispute.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent /landlord filed an eviction application before a Rent Controller Lahore for eviction of his tenant on the grounds of personal need, damage to the property, sub letting as well as default. From the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed seven issues including two additional issues. Ultimately, the; learned Rent Controller by his order dated 29th March, 1976 dismissed the eviction application, but allowed the landlord‑respondent to withdraw the rent already deposited by the tenant at the rate of Rs. 10 per month.

3. The matter was agitated in appeal which came up for disposal before a learned Additional District Judge who vide his order dated 31st July, 1976 decided issues 1 and 2 in favour of the landlord and against the tenant and held the appellant in default by not paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per month. In so far as issue regarding personal need, it was held that this was not available because six years statutory period had not yet expired. However, the findings of the Rent Controller on issues Nos. 5 and 6 were decided against the landlord. Issue No. 4 regarding damage to the property was also decided against the landlord.

4. Learned counsel appearing in support of this S. A. O. has sought to argue that admittedly the latest municipal assessment with respect to the whole of the property was Rs. 60 and it was also not in dispute that the appellant was in possession of only one room out of the six inclusive of the amenities, therefore, by no plausible process of reasoning or on a reasonable plane, the appellant could be burdened with the default on the assumption that he was liable to pay rent at the rate Rs. 20 per month. I find that prima facie there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there had been no fair trial of the pleas of the parties at the hands of two Courts below and that the case be sent back to the Rent Controller for trial afresh of all the pleas of the parties.

5. Case has been called several times. It is now 1.30 p. m. None has appeared to oppose this appeal on behalf of the respondent.

6. I have considered the overall facts and circumstances of this case and I am of the view that the Rent Controller had not applied his mind to the facts of the case in judicious manner and the first appellate authority also misdirected itself in not appreciating the pleas of the parties in their proper perspective. In these circumstances, the orders of Rent Controller B and the learned Additional District Judge are set aside, case is remanded to the Rent Controller for trial afresh of the eviction proceedings in accordance with law. There shall however, be no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. S. A. O. allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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