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.
Writ Petition No. 335 of 1984, heard on 31st March, 1984.
-- Art. 9-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (6) -Default by tenant in compliance of order passed under S. 13 (6) of Ordinance-Rent Controller passing forthwith ejectment order-Petitioner contending in writ petition that Rent Controller directing production of receipts showing payment, on extended date amounted to extension for deposit of monthly rent, held, had no substance-Plain reading of order showed that neither time for deposit of rent was extended nor petitioner applied for such extension either orally or in writing-Ejectment order, held, was unexceptionable in circumstances.
Ch. M. A. Latif Amritsari for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 31st Match, 1984.
This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby Zeeshan Ellahi petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders, dated 17th December, 1983 and 31st January, 1984 passed by Rent Controller, Multan and learned District Judge, Multan to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading upto this petition, in brief, are that on 27th April, 1983 Abdul Hameed respondent No. 3 filed application against the petitioner for ejectment from the disputed property consisting of 3 rooms and a plot. On 10th September, 1983 the learned Rent Controller passed order under section 13 (6) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordi nance, directing the petitioner to deposit the alleged arrears of rent for 22 months amounting to Rs. 8,800 by 5th December, 1983. It was further directed that future monthly rent should be deposited by 14th of each month. On 17th December, 1983 the learned Rent Controller ordered of forthwith ejectment of the petitioner on account of the failure of the petitioner to deposit monthly rent for the months of September, 1983, October, 1983 and November, 1983 in accordance with the directions given in the order, dated 10th September, 1983. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Multan which was dismissed on 31st January, 1984, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that since the learned predecessor vide his order, dated 5th December, 1983 had permitted the petitioner to deposit the rent for the months of September, October and November, 1983 by 15th December, 1983, there fore, the successor Rent Controller could not have passed the order of ejectment under section 13 (6) of the Ordinance.
< --[if gte vml 1]>
The plain reading of the order shows that the time for the deposit of the future monthly rent relating to three months was not subsequently extended. No application for the extension of time was given by the petitioner. The order does not indicate any oral request having been made by him in this behalf. Had the Court extended the time then the Court would have given reasons for the same. For all these reasons I am convinced that the trial Court had not extended the time for the deposit of the rent for the months of September, October, and Novem ber, 1983, and as such, no exception can be taken to the concurrent fin dings of the learned Courts below that the petitioner had not complied with the directions given by the trial Court in its order, dated 10th September, 1983. Further, the learned Courts below have neither viola ted any relevant provision of law nor have disregarded the case law laid down by the superior Courts.
5. For what has been stated above, it is not a fit case for interference with the impugned orders in writ jurisdiction. Dismissed in limine.
M. B. A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer