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. 269 of 1983, decided on 27th November, 1985.
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9‑1‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 4887 of 1982).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (2)(ii)(a)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Default and subletting‑‑Tender of rent in contravention of tenancy‑‑Original tenant not keeping tenancy to himself, making R a partner in tenancy without associating landlord or obtaining his consent and himself proceeding abroad‑‑Tender of rent by R could be lawfully refused by landlord‑‑Order of ejectment on ground of default and subletting, held, unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ammar Raza A. Khan; Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on-Record for Petitioners.
Abdul Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Date of hearing: 27th November, 1985.
This petition for leave to appeal calls in question judgment, dated 9‑1‑1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a rent restriction matter filed by the present petitioners, was dismissed.
The dispute raised before us is that the findings of the High Court that although Muhammad Aslam petitioner was the tenant, he had sublet the premises to Muhammad Rafique petitioner; and further that the tender of rent by the latter was in contravention of the tenancy, and thus it amounted to default in payment of rent, not supported by facts and law.
After hearing the learned counsel we do not agree with him., The examination of the argument of partnership so‑called, reveals that Muhammad Aslam did not keep the tenancy to himself but made Muhammad Rafiq a partner in the tenancy also without associating the landlord or obtaining his consent. Muhammad Aslam admittedly had gone abroad; and, the rent was being remitted by Muhammad Rafique. These facts constituted sufficient material to come to a finding that it was a flea case of subletting by Muhammad Aslam to Muhammad Rafique.
That being so, the tender of rent by Muhammad Rafique when the tenant was Muhammad Aslam, could be lawfully refused by respondent No. 1, the landlord. Therefore, on both the questions of rent default and subletting, the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. No justification has been made out for interference. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
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