1994 PLP 465 (CLC)
IHTISIJAMUL HAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RENT CONTROLLER, SIALKOT and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 465 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, J |
| Parties | IHTISIJAMUL HAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RENT CONTROLLER, SIALKOT and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 465 (CLC)?
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 1994 PLP 465 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 465 (CLC) (IHTISIJAMUL HAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RENT CONTROLLER, SIALKOT and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Nasrullah Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 13(6)‑‑‑Arrears of rent‑‑‑Deposit of‑‑‑Rent Controller was not competent to pass an order for deposit of past rent beyond period of three years from date of institution of ejectment application‑‑‑Order of Rent Controller directing tenant to deposit arrears of rent for a period of last five years was bad in law and was liable to be struck down.
Judgment & Decree
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an amount of Rs.36,000 has been deposited in Court as per directions contained in order dated 10‑11‑1992. The question as to whether or not the Rent Controller could direct deposit of arrears of rent for a period of five years require consideration.
2. Admit. Notice.
3. Ch. Abdul Rashid Cheema, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of contesting respondent.
4. There is a joint request by the parties that the point involved being short one and case may be heard and decided today.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rent Controller vide order dated 11‑10‑1992 has directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent since December 1987, although he was not competent to pass an order for deposit of past rent beyond the period of three years from the date of the institution of the ejectment petition and in this manner at the most order for deposit of rent could have been passed since April, 1989. It is further submitted that the impugned order, in this view of the matter, is bad in law and liable to be struck down.
6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 concedes this legal position. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 11‑10‑1992 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioner (tenant) has already deposited rent for a period of three years up to the date of the institution of the ejectment petition. Copy of the deposit receipt has been handed over to their learned counsel for respondent No.2. Since it is a rent matter, the learned Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the main case expeditiously. No costs. H.B.T./1‑60/L Petition accepted.