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 No. K‑477 of 1983, heard on 12th January, 1984.
(On appeal from judgment and order of High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 18th duly, 1983 passed in Second Appeal No. 298 of 1971).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30‑‑Eviction‑‑Statutory notice‑‑High Court after examining case in detail coming to conclusion that petitioner/ tenant acquired tenancy right from respondent /landlord through an agreement after target date namely 20‑12‑1958 and, therefore, notice under S. 30 of Act 1958 was unnecessary and that tenant was defaulter in payment of rent‑‑Findings of fact and law arrived at by High Court, held, unassailable and no exception in law could be taken thereto‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against order of High Court dismissed.
G. M. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by R. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing:12th January, 1984.
‑Facts of this case briefly stated are that respondent filed an application for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent from October, 1967 till the filing of the ejectment application. After recording evidence of the parties, the Rent Controller held the petitioner as a defaulter in payment of rent and directed him, by the order, dated 31‑7‑1969. to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises to respondent.
Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional District Judge on the ground that the ejectment application was not competent as notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was not served on the petitioner who was a statutory tenant.
On a second appeal filed by respondent, the learned Judge in Sind High Court who dealt with the case held on re‑appraisal‑of the evidence recorded in the case that petitioner was not entitled to notice under section 30 of the Act for the reason that he had acquired the tenancy rights from the respondent through an agreement, dated 9‑10‑1966 (Exh. 21), and since admittedly no rent had been paid by him to the respondent for the period in question, learned Rent Controller had rightly passed the order of eviction against him. On this view of the case, learned Judge of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge anal upheld the order of the Rent Controller.
Mr. G.M. Qureshi, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court submits that since petitioner was occupying the property even before the target date, namely, 20‑12‑1958, no order of eviction could be passed against him in the absence of service of notice under section 30 of the Act.
This plea has been examined by the High Court in great detail, and rejected on the ground that the petitioner acquired tenancy rights from the respondent under an agreement, dated 9‑10‑1966 and it was, therefore, unnecessary in law for the petitioner to serve notice under section 30 of the Act on the respondent. The High Court has also held that the petitioner had indeed executed the agreement, dated 9‑10‑1966. These findings of fact and law are unassailable, and in view of the admitted position that petitioner failed to pay rent for the period complained against him, no exception in law can be taken against the view that prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court.
There is, therefore, no merit in this petition, and it is 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