Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. K‑332, K‑333 of 1984, decided on 4th March, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, dated 10‑4‑1984 passed in First Rent Appeal No. 754 of 1980).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15‑‑Ejectment on ground of default‑‑Challenged‑‑Petitioner unable to controvert stand taken by tenants‑‑Evidence of petitioners not convincing‑‑Default not having been established, order of ejectment reversed in appeal‑‑Allegations of default with almost identical facts against two tenants smelling as a made up story and conduct of tenant respondents found unblemished‑‑Petitions being devoid of merits, dismissed.

Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 4th March, 1985.

‑In both the above‑mentioned petitions, landlord /petitioner is the same and the period of default in C.P.L.A. No. 332/K is alleged to be from August, 1973 to 30‑9‑1975 and in C.P.L.A. No. 333/K it is w.e.f. 1‑8‑1973 to 30‑9‑1975 while the other facts are common in these two petitions. This order will, therefore, dispose of both the Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos. 332/K and 333/K of 1984.

2. The petitioner brought ejectment applications under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the respondents in the Court of the Rent Controller on the grounds of default and personal need. The learned Rent Controller allowed the applications and ordered ejectment of the respondents vide his order. dated 15‑9‑1980 on ground of default only for the period from 1‑8‑1973 to November, 1974. On appeal, the said order was reversed by the learned Judge of the Sind High Court vide. the impugned judgment, dated 10‑4‑1984 holding that no default has been established and the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the respondents. It was observed that the tenant/respondents have been paying the rent regularly from the inception of their tenancy and it is their contention that the alleged period of default is due to the fact that the landlord/ petitioner, on the pretext of non‑availability of printed receipt book, did not issue any receipt. The respondents/ tenant, therefore, sent money orders for two months and also applied for depositing the due rent in the Court of the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner could not controvert this stand and his evidence was also not convincing. We also find that against both the respondents, almost identical facts of default has been alleged which smells as a made‑up story of default in the payment of rent. The conduct of the tenant/ respondents has also been taken into consideration by the learned High Court Judge in the impugned order as 'unblemished'. Hence, we do not think that these petitions merit consideration and, we therefore, reject the same. Petitions for leave to Appeals Nos. K/332 and K/333 of 1984 are, therefore, dismissed.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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