Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No.313‑K of 1984, decided on 25th September, 1984.

(From the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 15‑4‑1984 passed in F.R.A. No.991 of 1980).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15(2) (ii)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Default in payment of rent‑‑Tenant paying rent to landlords' counsel in response to notice received from him on behalf of landlords‑‑Counsel having no written authority to receive rent‑‑Leave granted to consider whether such payment amounted to discharge of tenant's obligation.

Syed Ahmad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 25th September, 1984.

.‑‑This petition arises out of an ejectment application filed by the respondents against the petitioner on grounds of (1) default in payment of rent from February 1965 to March 1972 at the rate of Rs.20 p.m., (2) personal requirement, and (3) damage to the property. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on a 1 the three grounds but in first appeal before the High Court the finding on default was reversed and the petitioner's ejectment was ordered.

2. On 18‑9‑1984 when the petition came up for hearing before this Court, an order was passed for issue of notice to the respondents for today, but none has appeared on their behalf.

3. The case of the petitioner was that he had been paying rent to Mr. Matin Khan, Advocate of the respondents, in response to notice dated 1‑5‑1970 received from him (Mr. Matin Khan) on behalf of the respondents and as such he was not guilty of default. This Mr. Matin Khan appearing as R.W.1 had admitted the contention in the following words:

"I was authorised by the present applicants to collect rent on their behalf. Accordingly opponents had been depositing rents to me and I was issuing receipts to the opponents. I produce five receipts EXh. l‑B to F. which bear my signatures. I issued last receipt on 9‑3‑1972 by which I had received rent upto April 1972 from the opponent at the rate of Rs.20 p. m. The High Court observed that though the issue of notice by Mr. Matin Khan was not disputed, he had himself admitted that he had no written authority from the landlords. The High Court, therefore, held that Mr. Matin Khan could have accepted rent on behalf of the landlords only up to the period mentioned in the notice but not thereafter. It is submitted that at no time after the receipt of the said notice, had the petitioner been informed by the landlords to pay rent direct to them and not to Mr. Matin Khan and that, therefore, the rent paid to Mr. Matin Khan had amounted to a discharge of their obligation.

The point raised requires consideration, for which leave is granted. Security Rs.1,000. The execution of the order of ejectment is stayed subject to the petitioner depositing rent in accordance with law.

M. I Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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