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. 118 of 1980, decided on 27th July, 1986.
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14‑10‑1979 passed in Writ Petition No. 6264 of 1979).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Arguments not raised before High Court could not be entertained at stage of petition for leave to appeal.
‑‑‑S. 13(6)‑‑Failure to deposit rent within time‑‑Defence struck off‑ Rent Controller not empowered to ignore delay‑ ‑Ejectment of tenant (educational institution) under S.13(6)‑‑Plea that Rent Controller should have extended time as departmental representative was delayed in making deposit on account of departmental procedures, repelled‑‑Unless reason for non‑deposit showed objective unavoidability, Rent Controller, held, had no power to ignore delay in making deposit under S.13(6).
S.M. Zubair, Asstt. Advocate‑General Punjab, M.A.Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record
(Absent) for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 27th July, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 14‑10‑1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition, was dismissed. It had arisen out of striking of the defence of the petitioner‑tenant vis‑a‑vis an educational institution functioning in a rented premises, on account of non‑deposit of rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance. 1959.
Learned counsel has raised two contentions: One, that the ejectment application should have been filed against the Collector, failure to implead him has resulted in miscarriage of justice; and secondly, that although default in deposit of rent under section 13(6) on time is not denied, the Rent Controller should have extended the time for deposit as the departmental representative got delayed in making the deposit on account of departmental procedures.
None of these arguments was raised before the High Court. They, therefore, cannot be entertained at this stage. However, they are also without any substance. The Province of Punjab was impleaded through the Education Officer. Not only this, the learned counsel has failed to show that the Collector was also a necessary party nor he is able to show that failure to implead the Collector has in any way resulted in miscarriage of justice.
The explanation for non‑deposit of rent on time it is untenable. As held by this Court repeatedly, unless the reason for non‑deposit shows objective unavoidability, the Rent Controller had no power to ignore the delay in making the deposit under section 13(6). Looked at from whatever angle, this petition has no force and is accordingly 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