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 Leave to Appeal No.K‑161 of 1984, decided on 5th June, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, dated 21‑2‑1984 in F.R.A. No.878 of 1982).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss.12 & 15 (2)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Default in payment of rent‑‑Adjustment claimed against rent on account of expenses allegedly paid for white‑wash and painting of premises‑‑Payment of advance not proved‑‑Plea of adjustment on account of repair, held, not tenable for want of permission‑ Concurrent findings of fact on question of default being based on evidence and no question of law arising for consideration, leave to appeal refused.
Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date: of hearing: 5th June, 1984.
.‑‑The respondent landlady filed an application of the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed premises on the ground of default in payment of rent from 15‑2‑1979 to 15‑5‑1979. An issue in this regard was framed and the learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties ordered ejectment of the petitioner by his order, dated 21‑7‑1982. The petitioner's first appeal against the said order was dismissed by the High Court as per impugned judgment, which is the subject‑matter of this petition for leave to appeal.
The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that an amount of Rs.500 was paid to the respondent under a receipt, dated 17‑3‑1971 as deposit for one month along with a sum of Rs. 3,000 towards advance rent, and upon adjustment of the amount of deposit the case of default for three months was not made out. The petitioner raised no such plea either in his written statement, in his affidavit or in the cross‑examination nor it was shown that either the respondent or her attorney was confronted with the said receipt. It was alleged by the petitioner that he had paid a sum of Rs. 3,000 to one Nadir Khan at the instance of the respondent's attorney for carrying out work of white‑‑wash and painting in tile disputed premises and adjustment of the same alone was claimed against the rent.
The learned two Courts on consider ing the evidence brought on the record did not accept this plea. It was further held by the learned High Court that in any case the plea of adjustment on account of expense, if any, incurred on repairs was not tenable for want of permission obtained by the petitioner as required under section 12 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The concurrent findings of the learned two Courts on the question of default are based on evidence and are findings of fact. No question of law worth consideration arises in this petition, which is dismissed accordingly.
M.I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer