P L D 1983 Lahore 574 (PLP)
KHUDA BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1983 Lahore 574 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | KHUDA BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1983 Lahore 574 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1983 Lahore 574 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1983 Lahore 574 (PLP) (KHUDA BAKHSH-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Muzaffar Ahmad Zafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)- . -- S. 13(6) and Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 19811, Art. 9 Tentative rent, fixation of-Tenancy not regulated by written rent deed-Tenant not placing on record any receipt to show payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 100.00 p.m.-Landlord averring in ejectment petition that tenant had been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 300.00 p.m.-Contention that Rent Controller acted contrary to law and procedure in fixing rate of rent at the rate of Rs. 300.00 on statement of landlord on oath and that fixation of exorbitant rate of rent not justified and amounted to ousting tenant from premises in dispute as compliance of order not possible for tenant-Tenant petitioner not pleading lack of jurisdiction in Rent Controller to pass impugned order-Contentions even if assumed to have some force, held, do not call for interference in circumstances-Approximate rate of rent liable to modification and eventual adjustment. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) -- S. 13(6) and Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9Oaths Act (X of 1873)-Tentative rate of rent, determination of Obligatory for Rent Controller to determine rate of rent by application of judicial mind-Fixation of tentative rate of rent on landlord's statement on oath at exorbitant rate without providing opportunity to tenant to accept or repudiate such statement and not following requirements of law as envisaged under provisions of Oaths Act, 1873, deprecated. It has been noticed in some cases that the Rent Controllers have exhibited depreciable tendency to fix tentative rate of rent on landlords' statement made on oath at exorbitant rate, without providing opportunity to the tenant to accept or repudiate such statement and following the requirements of law as envisaged under the provisions of "The Oaths Act X of 1873." It is obligatory for the Rent Controller while passing the order under section 13(b) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 to determine the tentative rate of rent by application of judicial mind so that the order passed by him in that behalf may not create hardship for either of the parties.
Judgment & Decree
Khuda Bakhsh petitioner by means of this Constitutional .petition has challenged the order dated 16-3-1983 of the learned Rent Controller, Faisalabad passed under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 directing him to deposit arrears of rent @ Rs. 300.00 p.m. and future rent at the same rate before 15th of each month ; in respect of the property in dispute occupied by him as tenant under respondent No. 1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller had acted contrary to law and procedure having the force of law in fixing approximate rate of rent of the disputed property on the statement of respondent No. I made on oath. It was also stated that the exorbitant rate of rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller was not justified and amounted to ousting the petitioner from the premises in dispute as it was not possible for him to comply with the order.
3. I have considered the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The tenancy in this case is not regulated by a written rent deed. The petitioner has not placed on the record any receipt to show that he was paying rent of the disputed property at the rate of Rs. 100.00 p.m. in support of his case. On the contrary respondents averred in ejectment petition that the petitioner had been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per month. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner even if assumed to have some force do not call for interference in the impugned order in writ jurisdiction particularly when he has not pleaded lack of A jurisdiction in the Rent Controller to pass. the impugned order. Even otherwise the learned Rent Controller has fixed only approximate rate of rent which is liable to modification and eventual adjustment.
4. It has been noticed in some cases that the Rent Controller have exhibited deprecable tendency to fix tentative rate of rent on landlords' statement made on oath' at exorbitant rate, without providing opportunity t the tenant to accept or repudiate such statement and following the requirements of law as envisaged under -the provisions of "The Oaths Act X o 1873". It is obligatory for the Rent Controller while passing the order under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 to determine the tentative rate of rent by application .of judicial mind so that the order passed by him in that behalf may not create hardship for either of the parties.
5. Subject to the observation made above this petition is dismissed in limine. M. A. K. Petition dismissed.