Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No.D-1061 of 1986, decided on 13th January, 1987.

---Ss.21 & 27--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss.13 & 15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Appeal 'filed under repealed Ordinance (VI of 1959), about two months prior to such repeal was decided by Appellate Authority under old Ordinance after about seven years of pendency--Petitioner during that long period of seven years did not bother to bring into notice of appellate Authority that after coming into force of Ordinance (XVII of 1979), forum of appeal had been changed, therefore, same should be sent to High Court--Petitioner himself being responsible- for passing of order against him by Appellate Authority which originally had jurisdiction to hear appeal, held, could not challenge order of Appellate Authority in constitutional ju diction of High Court.

The petitioner has 'challenged the order of A.D.J. dated 20th July, 1986 dismissing his appeal which was directed against the order of Rent Controller Karachi dated 10-12-1979 striking of defence of the petitioner'.

The only ground urged before us by the learned counsel is that this appeal was filed before the A.D.J. in August, 1979 under the provisions of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and after promulgation of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 21st November, 1979 the same should have been sent by the A.D.J. to the High Court as provided under section .27 of the latter Ordinance. We do not find any justification to interfere with the order which has been passed by the A.D.J. after almost seven years of the pendency of the said appeal with him. It was .the appeal of dab petitioner and it was for him to bring it In the notice of the A.D.J. within a reasonable time of 21st November, 1979, that the appeal should be sent to the High Court in accordance with law but the appellant allowed to continue the case pending with the said A.D.J. from 21st November, 1979 till 20th July, 1986 when the impugned order was passed. The petitioner is himself responsible for the passing of the order against him by a Court which had originally the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and with which the case was allowed to remain pending on account of inaction of the petitioner.

We are also of the view that since the appeals which were filed before 21st November, 1979 could have been disposed of by the same Judge even after 21st November, 1979 if the same were for argument and judgment, therefore, such appeals could have been competently disposed of by the same A.D.J. Since the appeal filed. by the petitioner was filed in August, 1979 about two months before coming into force of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, therefore, the same may have been pending for argument or judgment for all these times and in this view of the matter it could not be said that the judgment, impugned in this petition was completely without proper authority.

In any case, the petitioner having himself been responsible A for the impugned judgment it is not open for him to challenge the same before us in this petition, and we would not be inclined t exercise our discretion in favour of such a petitioner who has kept himself silent for such a long time. This petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. We may mention here that the appellant has already filed Second Appeal in this High Court against the sam judgment and the same is under process.

H . B . T . /M-267/ K Petition 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.