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.
Writ Petition No.2698 of 1983, decided on 25th February, 1984.
---Ss.13 & 13-A--Predecessor-in-interest of landlord had died--No notice under S.13-A of Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was served on tenant--Tenant tendering rent for disputed months by money order ,on another heir, widow of deceased landlord through respondent- Respondent refusing to accept rent--Ejectment application was rejected by Rent Controller on the ground that no default was committed as rent was tendered and it was refused--Appellate Court reversed the order of Rent Controller and ejectment order was passed against tenant--Contention that rent was remitted to one of heirs as admittedly no notice under S.13-A of Ordinance was served--Tenancy was oral and rent for the disputed month was remitted within time to another heir, widow of landlord--Held, even if it was assumed that respondent was acting as landlord to receive rent on behalf of other heirs of deceased landlord and tenant was required to remit rent in his name for the defaulting month; it .would be only a ,technical default and the tenant committed no wilful default--Rent Controller's order rejecting ejectment application was upheld.
Sh. Muhammad Islam for Petitioner.
Kamal-ud-Din for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th February, 1984.
Muhammad Akram respondent sought ejectment of Abdul Haleem Qureshi from the portion of House 9-B, Mohabir Street, Beadon Road, Lahore on the ground that the latter committed default in payment of rent to him for the month of April, 1981. Abdul Haleem Qureshi resisted the application. It was pleaded that the rent tendered by him through Money Order for the month of April, 1981 was not received by the respondent No.3.
2. The learned Rent Controller framed issue on the point of default and recorded evidence led by the parties in that behalf. It transpired through evidence that originally one Tajammal Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No.3 and others, was the owner of the disputed property. Abdul Haleem Qureshi had been tenant under him and paying rent to him. After his demise no notice as envisaged under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was served by his heirs, nevertheless he had been paying rent to his heirs. According to the petitioner he had been paying rent to Mst.Fayyazi Begum his widow. The receipts were executed by Muhammad Akram, respondent No.3 who was her son and related to the petitioner as well. He remitted rent for the month of April, 1981 by money order to Mst.Fayyazi Begum through Muhammad Akram respondent No.3 but he refused to receive the same.
On the contrary the case of Muhammad Akram was that Abdul. Haleem Qureshi was tenant under him. He had always been paying rent to him in lieu of the receipts. He malafidely remitted rent for the month of April, 1981 by Money Order to Mst.Fayyazi Begum through him which was not acknowledged by him, for that reason.
3. The learned Rent Controller evaluated evidence on the record and vide order dated 20-2-1983, held that Abdul Haleem Qureshi committed no default and rejected the ejectment application.
4. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge Lahore vide his order dated 5-6-1983 reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and directed Abdul Haleem Qureshi's ejectment from the disputed premises. Hence this petition.
5. It is not denied that rent for the month of April, 1981 was remitted by the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest to one of the heirs of Tajammal Hussain namely Mst.Fayyazi Begum through Muhammad Akram. It is also an admitted fact that after the death of Tajammal Hussain, no notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was served upon the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. He himself had been paying rent to his heirs for the premises in his occupation. It is established on the record that the tenancy was oral and Abdul Haleem Qureshi tendered rent for the month of April, 1981 within time. Muhammad Akram refused to receive the rent, because it was remitted in the name of Mst. Fayyazi Begum another heir of Tajammal Hussain.
Even if it is assumed that Muhammad Akram respondent was acting as landlord to receive rent on behalf of other heirs of Tajammal Hussain and the tenant was required to remit rent in his name for the defaulting month, it would be only a technical default and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner committed no willful default.
In these circumstances the order of the learned Rent Controller rejecting ejectment petition merited no interference in appeal before the respondent No.1.
In the result this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5-6-1983 passed by the respondent No.1 is declared to be of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.
S.A./3042/L Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer