Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. K‑131 and K‑132 of 1983, decided on 14th June, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated 23‑1‑1983 in F, R. As. Nos. 422 and 423 of 1980).

‑‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(6)‑Ejectment proceedings‑Failure of petitioner‑tenant to deposit rent on direction of Rent Controller‑ Explanation furnished by petitioner for non‑compliance of tentative rent order not accepted by Rent Controller as well as High Court Findings of High Court based on cogent reasons‑Held, unexception able.

Anwar Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

A. A. Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 14th June, 1983.

.‑This order will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos. K‑131 and K‑132 of 1983 which arise out of a common judgment of the learned High Court of Sind dated 23‑1‑1983 whereby two First Rent Appeals Nos. 422 and 423 of 1980 brought by the petitioner challenging the order of the Rent, Controller dated 26‑4‑1980 passed in two rent cases, were dismissed.

2. The two Rent Cases No. 699 of 1978 and No. 698 of 1978 were filed by the respondent landlord against the petitioner seeking his ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent from the period commencing from 1‑6‑1976 up to31‑12‑1977. The applications were resisted by the petitioner who filed a written statement wherein it was, inter alia, pleaded that the petitioner had paid rent upon 30‑12‑1976 and thereafter made a further payment of Rs.3,000 to the husband of the respondent. It was alleged that thereafter the respondent had refused to accept rent. A tentative rent order was passed by the Rent Controller on 16‑4‑1979 whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit the arrears of rent amount ing to Rs.3,102 in Rent Case No. 699 of 1978 and Rs. 2,332 in rent case No. 698 of 1978 up to 30‑5‑1979 and also to deposit current rent before 15th of each succeeding month.

3. The said order was admittedly not complied with by the petitioner, who instead moved an application for review of the tentative rent order on 5‑8‑1979. The respondent made an' application on 10‑11‑1979 for striking off the defence of the petitioner under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for non‑compliance of the tentative rent order. The petitioner's review application and the application of the landlord for striking off the defence were heard together and disposed of by the learned Rent Controller on 26‑4‑1980 whereby the defence of the petitioner was struck off, and he was ordered to vacate the premises. The said order of the Rent Controller was challenged by means of two separate appeals before the Sind High Court Which were dismissed as per impugned judgment. .

4. The explanation furnished by the petitioner for non‑company of the tentative rent order dated 16‑4‑1979 passed in the rent cases was not accepted by the Rent Controller as well as by the learned High Court.

5. We have gone through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court and have also perused the order of the Rent Controller dated 26‑4‑1980; whereby the petitioner's review application was dismissed and the defence of the petitioner was struck off. The learned High Court has given cogent reasons for holding that the petitioner was not absolved of his obligations to keep himself informed as to the progress of the case which had been pending in the Court of the Rent Controller ever since January, 1978 and although he had knowledge of the fact that Mr. Inayat Ali was ill he should have been even more diligent in finding out as to what had happened to his case. The findings are unexceptionable and call for no interference.

6. The petition, in the circumstances, fails and is dismissed accord ingly.

S, Q. 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.