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 Leave to Appeal No. 149‑K of 1986, decided on 21st April, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 2‑2‑1986 in F.R.A. No. 516 of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss.15, 16 & 21‑‑Ejectment‑‑Fact that tenant had been paying rent which landlord accepted up to a certain period where after he refused to accept same, appearing correct‑‑Tenant's plea, that landlord had been accepting rent through money order in spite of filing of ejectment application and that tenant was totally unaware of tentative rent order passed by Rent Controller, deserving consideration‑‑Leave to appeal granted.
Suleman Kassim, Advocate Supreme Court and A.Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st May, 1986.
This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 2‑2‑1986 dismissing petitioner's appeal and in result upholding the order of Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he had failed to deposit rent in Court inn compliance, with the earlier order passed by him, dated 9‑12‑1984.
The plea raised by the petitioner in defence was that he was regularly sending rent to respondent‑landlord through money order from June, 1977 and the respondent accepted the same up to November, 1984 but refused to do so when he sent rent by money‑order for the month of December, 1984 and thereafter he deposited rent in Court and he was, therefore, not guilty of non‑payment of rent. As regards the order of the Rent Controller petitioner explained that it was not communicated to him by his counsel at all.
It seems correct that petitioner was paying rent to respondent landlord through money order ever since June, 1977 and these payments were accepted by the respondent up to November, 1984 where after he refused to accept the same. Petitioner's plea that respondent was accepting rent through money order in spite of the filing of the ejectment application and that he was totally unaware of the order of the Rent Controller, dated 9‑12‑1984 deserves consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Security Rs.500.
Appeal will be heard on the present record but it will be open to the parties to file additional documents, if any,
Petitioner shall not be evicted from the demised premises till the appeal is decided provided he continues to deposit rent in the Court regularly.
M. Y. H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer