Find a Lawyer

Second Rent Appeal No. 7 of 1986, decided on 11th March, 1987.

----S. 15--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.27- Enforcement of new Ordinance XVII of 1979--Effect on pending appeals filed under repealed Ordinance--Rent appeal against order of Rent Controller presented before Additional District Judge much before enforcement of Ordinance XVII of 1979 in place of Ordinance VI of 1959, held, was competent as Additional District Judge had jurisdiction over appeal filed before him at time when Ordinance VI of 1959 was in force.

Idrees Ahmed and others v. Hafiz Fida Ahmed Khan and 4 others P L D 1985 S C 376 relied on.

---S.114--West Pakistan General Clauses Act (VI of 1956), S.20--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.19(2)--Ex parte order, setting aside of--Jurisdiction of Rent Controller--Rent Controller not being a civil Court and S.20 of Act VI of 1956 also not being applicable in rent cases inasmuch as under S.19(2) of Ordinance XVII of 1979 powers to rescind ex parte order passed by Rent Controller having specifically been barred, tentative rent order passed ex parte, held, could neither be challenged by filing review application under S.114, C.P.C. nor could be rescinded by Rent Controller where tenant failed to comply with such order without giving any cogent reasons for such failure.

Hassan Ahmad Khan v. Irshad Khan through his legal heirs and another P L D 1987 Kar. 16 ref.

Ghulam Ghaus for Appellant.

Syed Manzar Ahmed for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 17th February, 1987.

This Second Appeal is under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) by the tenant directed against the judgment dated 20-7-1986 passed by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West, confirming the order dated 12-7-1979 of the VIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi.

The facts leading to the filing of tire above appeal are that the appellant No.l is the tenant of the respondent in respect of first floor of the building constructed on plot No.11-B-25, Commercial Area, Nazimabad, Karachi at the monthly rent of Rs. 90 besides electric charges. The respondents filed, eviction application No.4729 of 194 against the appellant No.1 and Samandar Khan on the ground that he failed to pay rent from 1-7-1975 till 30-9-1978 amounting to Rs.3,570 and also on the ground of subletting of the premises to the appellant No-2 and making additions and alterations in the premises without the permission of the respondent. The appellant filed written statement and resisted the eviction application. During the pendency of the eviction application, the Controller passed a tentative rent order on 14-2-1979 directing the appellant to deposit arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3,600 within two months from the date of the order and to continue to deposit future rent before 15th of each month i.e. the rent for the month of February 1979 on or before 15th March, 1979 and so on. The respondent filed application under section 13(6) of the repealed Ordinance on the ground that the appellants failed to comply with the said tentative order. The appellants filed objections to the application wherein they stated that the order was passed behind the back of the appellants and their advocate and without hearing them and the rent order came to the knowledge of the appellants' advocate on 21-3-1979. The appellants also filed review application. The learned Rent Controller after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties allowed the application under section 13(6) of the repealed Ordinance vide order dated 12-7-1979.

The appellants being aggrieved against the order dated 12-7-1979 of the Vth Rent Controller, Karachi filed rent appeal No. 459 of 1979 before the District Judge, Karachi. The appeal was subsequently transferred to the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the appeal by his order dated 20-7-1986.

The appellants being aggrieved against the judgment dated 20-7-1986 of the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West has preferred this Second Appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo. of appeal.

On 14-12-1986 this Court issued pre-admission notice to the respondent. In response to the pre-admission notice, Mr. S. Manzar Ahmed, Advocate appeared.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the judgment of the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi is on the face of it without jurisdiction. It is an admitted position that the Rent Appeal was presented on 13-8-1979 that is, much before the enforcement of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, and therefore, the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction over the appeal. The view I am taking finds support from the case of Idrees Ahmed and others v. Hafiz Fida Ahmed Khan and 4 others reported in P L D 1985 S C 376. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is devoid of any force.

The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the impugned tentative rent order was passed behind the back of the appellants and the appellants filed review application before the learned Rent Controller. This contention is also without force. -He has placed reliance on the case of Hassan Ahmed Khan v. Irshad Khan through his legal heirs and another reported in P L D 1987 Kar. 16. The facts of the above referred case are also not applicable to the facts of this case. Section 20 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act is not applicable in the present case inasmuch as under section 19('2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the powers to rescind the ex parte order passed by the Rent Controller Is specifically barred. Secondly the Rent Controller is not a civil Court. The provisions of section 114 of Civil Procedure Code cannot be pressed into service. It is an admitted position that the appellants did not comply with the tentative rent order passed by the learned Controller. They have not given any cogent reasons for not complying with the tentative rent order.

In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed with no order as to cost. The appellants are granted six months to vacate. They are directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within six months from today.

The above are the reasons for a short order dated 17-2-1987 passed by me on conclusion of the arguments.

H.B.T./M-71/K. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.