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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 380 of 1983, decided on 17th January, 1984.
(Against order dated 26‑2‑1983 of the Lahore High Court in S. A. O. No. 516 of 1977).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(6)‑Tenant accepting liability to pay rent but disputing latest assessment‑jurisdiction of Rent Controller to fix tentatively rate of rent at which rents in arrear and future rent to be deposited attracted‑Non‑compliance with orders of Rent Controller by tenant in depositing arrears and present rent and failure to satisfactorily explain reason for default‑Ejectment ordered‑High Court allowing yet another opportunity to tenant to make up default who again failed Dismissal of second Appeal, held, justified in such background‑No question of law arising which required further examination‑Leave to appeal refused.
Khan Muhammad Younas Khan, Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
Najmul Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Karim Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 17th January, 1984.
The petitioner, a tenant, seeks leave to appeal against an order passed by the Lahore High Court on 26‑2‑1983 dismissing a second appeal against his eviction on the ground of his chronic default in complying with the orders passed under the Rent Restriction Ordinance.
An ejectment application was filed against the petitioner on 22‑1‑1969, inter alia, on the ground that he had failed to pay rent since 1‑7‑1966 and the latest assessment of the property showed the rent payable by him to be Rs. 200 per month. The petitioner contested the application on numerous grounds including the rate of rent whereupon the Controller by an order dated 6th of July, 1975 fixed tentative rate of rent payable by the petitioner from 21‑1‑1966 to 30‑6‑1966 < It transpires that the petitioner was accepting his liability to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 15 per month and disputing the latest assessment. Such a dispute attracted the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to fix tentatively the rate of rent at which the rents in arrears and the future rent had to be deposited. This power the Rent Controller exercised and we do not find that there was any legal error in its exercise. Admittedly ,there was non compliance with the orders of the Rent Controller as well as with that of High Court by the petitioner and what is more a failure on the part of the petitioner to satisfactorily explain his failure. This was noted in the first appeal. The learned Judge in the High Court also found that in spite of a repetition of the orders of the Rent Controller by the High Court allowing yet another opportunity to him to make up the default he had not done so. The dismissal of his second appeal was eminently justified in such a back ground and we do not find any question of law arising there from which may require further examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M. Z. M. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer