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.201‑K of 1985, decided on 25th June, 1985.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑New plea‑‑Point not pleaded before High Court or any of Courts below, not allowed to be raised for first time before Supreme Court‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Naseem Farooqi, Advocate Supreme Court and S.M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th June, 1985.
‑Facts of this case briefly stated are that on 13‑7‑1967 respondent‑landlady applied for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent from June, 1965 onwards, besides not having paid Rs.1700 for the period previous to May, 1965. On the basis of the 1985Abdul Ghaffar Qureshi v. Federation of Pakistan (Abdul Kadir Shaikh , J evidence produced by the parties, the Rent Controller held the petitions guilty as a defaulter and directed his eviction from the premises b the order dated 19‑11‑1974. Petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed by District Judge, Tharparkar, and a second appeal filed by him in Sind High Court also met with the same fate. He now seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
Mr. Naseem Farooqui learned counsel appearing in support of the petition for leave to appeal submits that the High Court has failed to appreciate that respondent‑landlady used to collect rent periodical and the arrears in payment of rent were due to the fact that the landlady failed to collect the same. Learned counsel further pleaded in this behalf that petitioner's obligation to pay rent in advance stop waived by above practice and waiver on her part. We find that the first plea raised by the learned counsel has been rejected by the High Court and the Courts below for cogent rseasons. The second point regarding "waiver" on the part of the landlady was not even place before the High Court or any of the Courts below, and it is, therefore not open to petitioner to raise it for the first time before this Court.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed.
M.I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer