2010 PLP 847 (CLC)
AAMIR HAMEED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 847 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AAMIR HAMEED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 847 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 847 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 847 (CLC) (AAMIR HAMEED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Shaukat for Petitioner.
- M. Akram Nizami for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 15
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Tenant entered appearance but did not file an application for leave to defend
Trial Court passed ejectment order
Appeal by tenant was accepted and case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh
Tenant failed to appear and ex parte proceedings were ordered against him
Tenant filed application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings but did not file application for leave to defend, resultantly, the Rent Tribunal ordered ejectment of tenant
Appeal of tenant was dismissed
Tenant did not file application for leave to defend even when he joined proceedings before Rent Tribunal as directed by Appellate Court
Law must take its course and tenant must suffer the consequences
Order and appellate judgment impugned, being in accordance with law, constitutional petition by tenant was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This Constitutional petition is directed against the appellate judgment dated 25-11-2009 whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order of ejectment dated 3-9-2009 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are; that respondent No.3 filed an ejectment petition against the present petitioner who entered appearance but did not file an application for leave to defend. Consequently, an ejectment order was passed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application which was accepted and the case was remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh. Whereafter, in the presence of the parties the order was passed directing respondent No.3 to file application for leave to defend. On the adjourned date of hearing the petitioner did not appear and ex parte proceedings were ordered against him. Whereafter, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings but did not file application for leave to defend. In the circumstances respondent No.2 seized of the matter vide order dated 3-9-2009 ordered the ejectment of the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which failed to find favour and was dismissed vide impugned appellate judgment dated 29-11-2009.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard and record appended with this petition has been perused. The petitioner did not file an application for leave to defend. An ejectment order was passed. On appeal the case was remanded to the learned Rent Tribunal fixing the date for appearance of the parties on which date a specific order was passed directing respondent No.3 to file an application for leave to defend. On the adjourned date the petitioner did not appear and was proceeded ex parte who later joined the proceedings and made an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings but still did not file an application for leave to defend. It is clear and obvious that the petitioner did not file an application for leave to defend despite not only an order by respondent No.2 but also as required by provisions of law. Even when the petitioner joined the proceedings he still not filed an application for leave to defend. In this view of the matter the law must take its own course and the petitioner must suffer its consequences. It has also been noticed that during the course of proceedings before the appellate court a copy of the civil suit filed by the petitioner was brought on the record which clearly evidenced that the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted as well as the rate of rent. In the above circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order and appellate judgment impugned which are in accordance with law. The same do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition is without any merit and is dismissed. A.R.K./A-45/L Petition dismissed.