1989SCMR676 (PLP)
NAVEED NAWAZISH MALIK — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/APPELLATE AUTHORITY and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR676 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | NAVEED NAWAZISH MALIK — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/APPELLATE AUTHORITY and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR676 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR676 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR676 (PLP) (NAVEED NAWAZISH MALIK — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/APPELLATE AUTHORITY and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad; Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th November, 1988.
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad; Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16-3-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore m Writ Petition No.335 of 1988). --S.13(6)
of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Order to deposit rent before specified date--Tenant depositing rent on the specified date and not before that date--Tenant's defense was struck off and his appeal against said order was also dismissed--Tenant's explanation that he had tried to deposit rent before specified date, but was prevented from doing so, in spite of his best efforts, was accepted by High Court in Constitutional petition--Leave to appeal was granted to consider that if a tenant takes the risk of waiting for the last day for making deposit and fails to do so, whether he has himself to blame for such default. Ch. Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Rashid 1985 S C M R 21 and Fazalul Rahman v. Mst. Sarwari Begum and others 1986 S C M R 1156 rel. p, 3
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The relevant facts arc that the petitioner had filed a petition for the eviction of respondent No.3 from the shop in a Commercial Zone, Liberty Market, Gulberg, Lahore, on the ground that the tenant‑respondent No.3 had defaulted in payment of rent from November 1985. to May 1986. On 13‑11‑1986, an order was made by the Rent Controller under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance directing respondent No.3 to deposit the arrears of rent from November 1985 to October 1986 before 30‑11‑1986 and also pay the future rent before 15th of each succeeding month. Respondent No.3, however, committed a default in compliance with the aforesaid order; in that the rent was deposited on 30‑11‑1986 and no for 30‑11‑1986. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application for striking off his defense. This was granted by the Rent Controller vide order dated 15‑2‑1987. The respondent's appeal against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 25‑10‑1987 but the High Court on the writ petition filed by respondent No.3 accepted the same observing that the explanation given by the tenant that he had tried to deposit the rent on 29‑11‑1986 but was prevented from doing so despite his best effort, had force. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, in support of this petition for leave to appeal, has submitted that this Court has repelled the kind of the explanation offered by the tenant and accepted by the High Court in several decisions inter alia Ch. Muhammad Siddique v. Muhammad Rashid (1985 S C M R 21) and Fazalul Rahman v. Mst. Sarwari Begum and others (1980 S C M R 1156) on the view that A if a tenant takes the risk of waiting for the last day for making a deposit and fails to do so, he has himself to blame for the default. T she case requires further consideration. security in the sum of Rs.5,00n. The appeal will be made ready on then present record, with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any, and put up for hearing at an early date. A.A./N‑124/5 Lave to appeal granted