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 No. 230‑K of 1986, decided on 24th August,1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 22‑3‑1986 passed in First Rent Appeal No. 115 of 1984).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15‑ Leave to appeal‑‑ Ejectment proceedings‑‑Gross negligence existing on part of tenant‑petitioner's counsel in his failure to know tentative rent order, reiterating same contentions as were advanced before High Court which did not impress Court‑‑No law point involved in matter‑‑Leave refused.
M.A.I. Qarni, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 24th August, 1986.
The respondent applied for ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed residential premises situate in Peer Ilahi Bux Colony, Karachi on the grounds of default in payment of rent from October, 1982 to February, 1983, personal requirement and subletting. By order of the Rent Controller, dated 15‑5‑1983 the petitioner was directed to deposit arrears of Rs.1,750 on or before 10th June, 1983 and continue to deposit future monthly rent on or before the 10th of each succeeding month. As this order was admittedly not complied with the defence of the petitioner was struck off pursuant to respondent's application in this behalf.
2. According to the petitioner he was not informed of the order, dated 15‑5‑1983 by his counsel and it was only on 27‑7‑1983 when he came to know about the same and deposited the arrears of rent within three days. It is stated that the rent application was fixed for hearing on 14‑5‑1983 when no order was passed and the case was put off to 15‑5‑1983 on which date it was taken up by a link Judge and the order of deposit of rent was passed. The learned High Court on examining the facts of the case found that it was a case of gross negligence on the part of the learned counsel of the petitioner for which the petitioner could not be excused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same, contentions as were advanced before the High Court which have not impressed us. He was unable to satisfy us that any law point was involved in the matter. The petition merits no consideration and dismissed.
M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer