1986 PLP 82 (MLD)

‑‑‑S. 54‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑‑Permanent injunction‑‑Suit for‑‑Non‑prosecution by defendant‑ Defendant neither filed written statement nor counter‑affidavit to affidavit filed by plaintiff‑‑High Court disposed of suit on account of non‑prosecution by defendant and decreed ex parte to extent of injunction restraining defendant from using disputed premises for commercial or industrial purposes or running factory and without expressing its views on merits‑‑Court avoided to express views on merits with a view that any positive observations in that regard might prejudice defendant's defence in rent proceedings which already were pending before Rent Controller. Waheed Farooqui for Plaintiff. M. Hatif Khudai (absent) for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th April, 1985. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff /landlord against his tenant on the allegation that the tenant has not paid rent. Further, that contrary to the negative covenants in the lease, he has started making substantial structural changes and changing the face of the construction; further that he has established a business and an industry in the premises which were exclusively let out for residential purpose. It is stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that under the main lease from K . D . A . in favour of the plaintiff there is prohibition for using the premises for any purpose other than residential. As such the lease in favour of the plaintiff is liable to be forfeited. Summons were issued to the defendant and Mr. Hatif Khudai lnsari an Advocate of this Court entered appearance on behalf of the defendant. He appeared on several dates but the diary sheet does not indicate what was the defence set up by him. Mr. Waheed Farooqui learned counsel for the plaintiff states that neither any written statement has been filed nor indeed any counter‑affidavit to the affidavits filed by the plaintiff has been brought on the record. Mr. Waheed Farooqui, has put in an affidavit‑in‑proof against the defendant and prays for a decree against the defendant in the terms of the prayer claimed in the plaint. Without meaning to record a finding regarding the allegations contained in the plaint and fully conscious of the fact that any positive observations in this regard may prejudice the defendant in his defence in the rent proceedings which are already proceedings before the Rent Controller, Karachi. I have no option but to dispose of the suit on account of non‑prosecution by the defendant. I am, however, reluctant to express my views on merits and avoid a finding in absentia against the defendant which may prejudice his defence before the Rent Controller. This suit is, therefore, decreed ex parte but to the extent that an injunction should be issued restraining the defendant from using the said premises for commercial or industrial purposes or running a factory as alleged. The suit is decreed with cost in the above terms. H . B . T . Suit decreed accordingly.