2008 PLP 79 (SCMR)
SHAMSHAD BEGUM — Petitioner Versus Mst. HUMA BEGUM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 79 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | SHAMSHAD BEGUM — Petitioner Versus Mst. HUMA BEGUM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 79 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 79 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 79 (SCMR) (SHAMSHAD BEGUM — Petitioner Versus Mst. HUMA BEGUM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 15(2)(ii) & 21---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Ejectment of tenant on ground of default' in payment of rent of premises---Notice was served on tenant---Tenant/petitioner appeared before Rent Controller and sought adjournment to file a written statement---Tenant was accommodated thrice and thus more than reasonable time was afforded to her, but no written statement having been filed by her, plea of respondent/landlord and ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller and order of Rent Controller was upheld in appeal---Constitutional petition filed by petitioner against concurrent judgments of authorities below, had been dismissed by the High Court---Validity---Counsel for petitioner was unable to point out any misreading of record, misconstruction of evidence or non-reading of any material piece of evidence as well as error of jurisdiction---Petitioner/tenant having not pleaded her case before the forums below, she was rightly proceeded ex parte, to which no exception at law could be taken---After seeking adjournment from the Rent Controller, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to contest the case, explain her view point and to substantiate that no default was `made in payment of rent on her part---High Court neither had acted illegally nor without jurisdiction in declining to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction in interfering with concurrent findings of fact by Courts below, but had acted in exercise of its jurisdiction and according to law-Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
- Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 3. (pro forma respondents).
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 2006.
- 3. We, have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate -on-Record for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment and the entire record. Learned counsel is unable to point out any misreading of record, misconstruction of evidence or non-reading of any material piece of evidence as well as error of jurisdiction. Since the petitioner-tenant did not plead her case before the forums below, in our view, she was rightly proceeded ex parte, to which no exception at law can be taken. After seeking adjournments from the Rent Controller, it was incumbent upon her to contest the rent case, explain her view point and to substantiate that there was no default on her part. Even if she has deposited some amount of rent in miscellaneous rent case instituted by her, the finding of fact is that it was done much after the order of eviction was passed against her, which would not wash off the default and liability already incurred.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 15-9-2006 passed in C.P. No.S-692 of 2004).
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioner is aggrieved by Sindh High Court judgment, dated 15-9-2006 whereby her constitutional petition, calling in question concurrent findings of fact arising out of ejectment case, was dismissed.
2. Petitioner is tenant of respondent No.1 in respect of the demised premises. Her ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent with effect from 1-9-1999. Ground of subletting was also mentioned in the eviction application but it does not appear to have been pressed into service. After service of notice, respondent appeared before the Rent Controller and sought adjournment to file a written statement. She was accommodated thrice and more than reasonable time was afforded to her but no written statement was filed. Resultantly, eviction plea was allowed by the Controller vide order, dated 10-9-2001. Her appeal before an Additional District Judge failed whereafter she invoked constitutional jurisdiction Of the High Court but without any success, hence this petition.
3. We, have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate -on-Record for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment and the entire record. Learned counsel is unable to point out any misreading of record, misconstruction of evidence or non-reading of any material piece of evidence as well as error of jurisdiction. Since the petitioner-tenant did not plead her case before the forums below, in our view, she was rightly proceeded ex parte, to which no exception at law can be taken. After seeking adjournments from the Rent Controller, it was incumbent upon her to contest the rent case, explain her view point and to substantiate that there was no default on her part. Even if she has deposited some amount of rent in miscellaneous rent case instituted by her, the finding of fact is that it was done much after the order of eviction was passed against her, which would not wash off the default and liability already incurred.
4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, High Court neither acted illegally nor without jurisdiction in declining to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction in interfering with concurrent findings of fact rather acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction and according to law.
5. Resultantly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petitioner shall vacate the premises within 30 days from today. H.B.T./S-14/SC Petition dismissed.