Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. K‑75 of 1984, decided on 12th April, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Sind High Court dated 13‑11‑1983 in F. R. A. No. 729 of 1983).

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 15 Rent Controller showing great indulgence in matter to tenant but in spite of several opportunities given to her, first to cross‑examination of landlord and then to lead her own evidence but she failed to avail same‑Rent Controller in his order giving details of proceedings right from filing of written statement till date of announcement of order which tenant was unable to controvert ‑Held, proper opportunity was given to tenant to cross‑examine landlord and lead her evidence and her case therefore, did not remain as undefended in circumstances Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of bearing : 12th April, 1984.

This petition for leave to appeal has been brought to challenge the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 13‑I 1‑1983 which was passed in the background of the following fats.

The petitioner has been a tenant of the respondent in a half portion of a house bearing No. 1/650, Liaquatabad, Karachi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 100 since, 1971. The respondent applied for the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed promises in the Court of the Rent Controller, Karachi, on the ground of default in payment of rent since July 1979, and requirement of the premises for herself use and occupation. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 8‑8‑1983 on both the grounds and the petitioner's first rent appeal against the said order was dismissed by the High Court as per impugned judgment. Hence this petition for leave.

The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross‑examine the respondent nor she was allowed to file her affidavit in evidence with the result that her case remained undefended. This contention was raised before the learned High Court and on the basis of the record it was found that the Rent Controller had shown great indulgence in the matter to the petitioner but in spite of several opportunities given to her, first to cross‑examine the respondent and then to lead her own evidence, she had failed to avail of the same. The learned Rent Controller in his order has given the details of the proceedings right from the filing of the written statement until the date of announcement of the judgment on 8‑8‑1983 which the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to controvert.

The judgment of the learned High Court, in the circumstances, is unexceptionable.

The petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly.

M. Z. M. Petition 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.