1999 PLP 2658 (YLR)
SALEEM and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus USMAN ALI ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2658 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | SALEEM and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus USMAN ALI ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2658 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2658 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2658 (YLR) (SALEEM and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus USMAN ALI ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah for Appellants.
- 4. Mr. Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate learned counsel for the appellants present and heard. The material placed on file perused.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.13(6)‑‑‑Defence of tenant was struck off by Rent Controller due to non‑compliance of order to deposit rent ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Rent Controller having acted in accordance with provisions of S.13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, interference ‑vas declined by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/landlord had filed application for the ejectment of the appellants under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban. Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, before the Rent Controller (Civil Judge) Swat, at Gulkada, who struck off the defence of the appellants/tenants vide: his order, dated 30‑1‑1999.
2. The appeal of the appellants/tenants, filed before Additional District Judge/Izafi Zila Qazi, Swat against the said order, failed as it was dismissed on 5‑6‑1999.
3. Hence this second appeal.
4. Mr. Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate learned counsel for the appellants present and heard. The material placed on file perused.
5. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the appellants/tenants were directed to deposit the rent @ Rs‑3,000 per month from 31‑7‑1996 to 15‑8‑1998 and also to deposit future rent before the 15th of each month. They, however, did not comply with the order of the Rent Controller and, thus, their defence was struck off in accordance with clause (6) of section 13 of the Ordinance which is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:‑‑‑ "(6) In proceeding under this section on the first date of hearing or as soon as possible after that date and before issues are framed, the Controller shall direct the tenant to deposit all the rent due from him, and also to deposit regularly till the final decision of the case, before the fifteen day of each month the monthly rent due from him. If there is any dispute about the amount of rent due or the rate of rent, the Controller shall determine such amount approximately and direct that same be deposited by the tenant before a date to be fixed for the purpose. If the tenant makes default in the compliance of such an order then if he is the petitioner, his application shall be dismissed summarily and if he is the _respondent his defence shall be struck off and the landlord put into possession of the property without taking any further proceedings in the case."
6. The learned counsel for the appellants/tenants has patently failed to convince me, from the record, that the judgment impugned is either arbitrary or perverse. I am, therefore, of the view that the same should not be set aside by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction because the Rent Controller has acted in accordance with the provisions of sec tion 13(6) of the West Urban Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, stated above. The order of the Rent Controller is quite correct and needs no interference by this Court at all.
7. This appeal is without any substance and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. C.M.A./M.A.K./408/P Appeal dismissed.