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. 145 of 1978, decided on 17th April, 1978.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 7‑3‑1978 passed in Second Appeal from Order No. 108 of 1978 dismissing the appeal).
‑‑‑Ss. 2(d) & 13 (2)(i)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Rented land‑‑Tenant of rented land and superstructure thereon without any machinery was tenant at most of either rented land or non‑residential building which comes within ambit of Ordinance (VI of 1959) falling within jurisdiction of Rent Controller‑‑‑ Ejectment order upheld.
Messrs Rahman Cotton Factory v. Messrs Nichimen Co. Ltd. PLD 1976 S C 781 distinguished.
‑‑‑S. 13 (2)(i)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Default in payment of rent held, gave an independent right to landlord to get order of ejectment Notice before commencing ejectment proceedings against tenant, not necessary.
Raja Muhammad Younus, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
‑This is a petition for Special Leave to Appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, dated 7‑3‑1978, dismissing the petitioner's second appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) thereby maintaining the orders of his ejectment passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge.
2. The ejectment which was sought on the ground of default in the payment of rent was resisted by the petitioner who also maintained that the rent agreement between' the parties stipulated a notice before his eviction which had not been given and even otherwise the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain and determine the ejectment application under the Ordinance because the petitioner had installed a Saw Mill which rendered the rented premises into a factory not attracting the provisions of the Ordinance.
3. Both the learned Rent Controller and the learned Additional District Judge have found that the petitioner was a defaulter and repelling the other contentions raised by him ordered his ejectment. These orders have been maintained by a learned Single Judge of the High Court who, inter alia, held that under the law it was not necessary to give the petitioner a month's notice before commencing ejectment proceeding against him nor was there such a stipulation in the rent agreement relied upon in the case.
4. Before us, the grounds taken before the High Court are reiterated. On the point of ouster of jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, reliance is placed on Messrs Rahman Cotton Factory v. Messrs Nichimen Co. Ltd. P L D 1976 S C 781. The authority cited by the petitioner is clearly distinguishable because, in that case, a ginning factory equipped with machinery for processing and ginning cotton was leased out as a factory, whereas in the present case, it is established as a fact that, the petitioner was a tenant of the rented land and some superstructure thereon without any machinery. He is, therefore, tenant at the most of either rented land or non‑residential building which comes within the ambit of the Ordinance and the Rent Controller would have jurisdiction in the matter.
As regards the requirement of a notice prior to the institution of ejectment proceedings, the rent agreement, as found by the Courts below, did not stipulate any such condition. Besides, under section 13 of the Ordinance if default in the payment of rent is alleged and proved, it gives an independent right to the landlord to get an order, for the ejectment of his tenant.
M.I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer