Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 269 of 1984, decided on 23rd November, 1985.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑2‑1984 in Writ Petition No. 788 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 13‑A‑‑Service of notice‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Ejectment on ground of default‑‑Questions arising (i) whether appellant‑landlord was required by law to serve a notice on respondents before seeking eviction on ground of default and (ii) whether non‑service of notice under S. 13‑A would amount to negation of relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Held, If a notice under S.13‑A was not served that would not amount to absence of relationship of landlord and tenant‑ Rent not having been paid even after institution of application for eviction which was also treated as notice under S. 13‑A, respondents, held, liable to eviction‑‑Petition converted into appeal and disposed of accordingly.
Syed Azhar Imam Rizvi v. Mst. Salama Khatoon 1985 S C M R 27 and Muhammad Siddique v. Mst. Sharifan and another 1969 S C (Law Notes) 78 ref.
‑‑S.13‑A‑‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑Notice‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑If service of notice not established it would not amount to absence of relationship of landlord and tenant.
Syed Azhar Imam Rizvi v. Mst. Salma Khatoon 1985 S C M R 27 and Muhammad Siddique v. Mst. Shrifan and another Law Notes 1969 S C 78 ref.
‑‑‑Ss. 13 & 13‑A‑‑Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent‑ Presumtion of notice‑‑Tenant not paying rent even after institution of application for ejectment‑‑Relation of landlord and tenant established‑ Tenant liable to be ejected because institution of ejectment petition could be treated notice under S. 13‑A.
Syed Azhar Imam Rizvi v. Mst. Salama Khatoon 1985 S C M R 24 and Muhammad Siddique v. Sharifan and another Law Notes 1965 S C 78 at 79 ref.
Ayaz Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1985.
‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 27‑2‑1984 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a matter dealt under the Rent Restriction Law, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner's ejectment application against the respondent on ground of default in payment of rent was allowed ex parte on 21‑12‑1974 and the latter was dispossessed on 4‑2‑1975. Respondent's application for setting aside ex parte order succeeded on 11‑2‑1978. The case was heard on merits and the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petitioners application on the negative finding on the solitary issue on merits; relationship of landlord and tenant. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed on 21‑6‑1983. In the meanwhile the possession remained with the petitioner. However, the respondent's restoration application succeeded on 14‑2‑1984 against which the petitioner's appeal was dismissed. Then he filed a Constitutional petition against orders, dated 21‑6‑1983 and 19‑2‑1984 which having been dismissed by the High Court on 27‑2‑1984 it led to this petition for leave to appeal.
3. After hearing both the sides, we have converted the petition into appeal and dispose it of accordingly.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has candidly stated that he does not claim the ownership of the property. Nor the ownership thereof by the appellant is denied. The serious dispute however is on two‑fold controversy; whether the appellant was required by law (under section 13‑A of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance. 1959) to serve a notice on the respondents before seeking eviction on ground of default; and, whether non‑service of notice under section 13‑A., would amount to negation of the relationship of landlord and tenant.
5. On the first question proper evidence leading to presumption was adduced that a notice under section 13‑A was sent to the respondents who refused to receive the same. Instead of raising rebuttable proper presumptions under the law regarding delivery of such notice, it has been found that the appellant failed to establish delivery of notice by production of the postman. We would leave this question at that because rent has not been tendered or paid even after the institution of the application which for the present purpose amounts to service of notice. See Syed Azhar Imam Rizvi v: Mst. Salama Khatoon 1985 S C M R 24 and Muhammad Siddique v. Mst. Sharifan and another Law Notes 1969 S C 78.
6. On the second question also the respondents have no case. It is neither supported by statute nor any principle of law that if a notice under section 13‑A of the Ordinance is not served that would amount to absence of relationship of landlord and tenant. The analogy of case‑law under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, is not attracted here. Thus, the finding on issue of relationship has to be reversed and we do accordingly.
7. That being so, rent having admittedly not been paid after the institution of the application for eviction which has also been treated as notice under section 13‑A the respondents were liable to be evicted.
We order accordingly.
8. Regarding laches it suffices to observe that the appellant continued litigating for retaining the possession. And that being so a part of cause of action had arisen within few days of the filing of writ petition. In the circumstances of the case, it did not suffer from laches.
9. This appeal thus succeeds and the impugned orders are set aside.
M.I. Appeal accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer