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. K‑49rof 1984, decided on 4th September, 1985.
(Against the judgment of the High Court of Sind at Karachi dated 8‑8‑1984, passed in F. R. A. No. 610/84).
‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑Petition for leave to appeal‑Limitation‑Petition barred by one day‑Considering that an important question of law was involved in case, delay was condoned.
‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 14‑‑Ejectment application under S. 13 on ground of default by landlord‑Pending such application landlord after retirement from service filed another application under S. 14 for ejectment relating to same premises‑Second application of land lord was allowed and tenant ordered to be ejected by Rent Controller while earlier application under S. 13 was still pending‑Tenant handed over possession of house in question to landlord‑Rent Controller however passed order on first application and determined rent of house‑Leave to appeal granted to examine contentions that if Rent Controller chose to accept application under S. 13, only final order he could pass was that of eviction of tenant and that if premises in question was vacated by tenant voluntarily or otherwise, before eviction application had been decided by Rent Controller, it would become infructuous and Rent Controller would have no jurisdiction to decide any ancillary matter including determina tion of quantum of rent ; and that in such a case landlord must file a suit for recovery of rent before Court of general jurisdiction.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 4th September, 1985.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 8‑8‑1984 in a rent matter.
2. The petition is barred by one day but consideting that an important, question of law is involved in this case the delay is condoned.
3. That facts relevant for the purpose of this order are that Abdul Aziz petitioner/landlord applied for eviction of the respondent/tenant under section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent. Subsequently, when the petitioner retired as Collector of Custom and Central Excise on reaching the age of superannuation, he filed another application for ejectment of the respondent/tenant from the same house under the summary procedure provided by section 14 of the said Ordinance. The second application was allowed by the Rent Controller on 19‑9‑1983, while the earlier application under section 13 was still pending, and the respondent/tenant was ordered to be evicted. The respondent /tenant filed an appeal against that order in the High Court which was dismissed by it vide judgment dated 3‑1‑1984. As a result, after the expiry of the period of 2 months allowed by the Court the respondent/tenant handed over the possession of the house in question to the petitioner/landlord.
As already mentioned the earlier rent application of the petitioner under section 13 of the abovesaid Ordinance was still pending. This too was allowed to be argued by the learned Rent Controller on the limited point of quantum of rent. The petitioner objected that the earlier petition could not continue as it had become infructuous after the house in question had been vacated by the tenant and possession thereof was taken by the landlord. The learned Rent Controller, however, passed the order fixing the rent of the house in question as Rs. 1,400 per month.
Aggrieved by this order the petitioner fled an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed by it vide the impugned judgment, dated 8‑8‑1984. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. The main contention urged by the petitioner's counsel is that if the Rent Controller chooses to accept an application under section 13 of the said Ordinance, the only final order that he can pass is that of the eviction of the tenant and that if the premises in question is vacated by the tenant voluntarily or otherwise, before the eviction application has been decided by the learned Rent Controller, it would become infructuous and the Rent Controller would have no jurisdiction to decide any ancillary matter, including the determination of the quantum of rent. He submitted that in such a case the landlord must file a suit for recovery of rent before the Court of general jurisdiction.
5. The aforementioned question requires determination by this Court. Leave is, therefore, granted for this purpose.
6. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000.
7. To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents.
M. B. A. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer