2003 PLP 1553 (SCMR)

NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.

Petitioner, Nasir Hamid Qureshi has impugned the Order, dated 29-8-2002 of learned Judge in Chamber High Court of Sindh passed in Constitutional Petition No. 453 of 2002 filed by him whereby the same was dismissed with the following observations:-- "In the present case notice Exh.A-5 was given on 20-9-2002 and Rent Case was filed on 22-11-2000 i.e. after two months of service of the notice and the ejectment order was passed on 10-1-2002. In this case, therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Yousuf (supra), has been complied with and so the objection of the petitioner to the maintainability of the notice and the application is to sustainable." Respondent No.1, Mst. Abbasi Begum, filed eviction application against the petitioner under section 14 of Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground that she is more than 60 years of age and requires the premises being the first floor of the building at Plot No.B-37, Block-6, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, for her personal use. The application was filed by her before learned Rent Controller, Karachi, East on 22-11-2000 and it was allowed on 1-1-2002. Being dissatisfied with the decision of learned Rent Controller the petitioner filed F.R.A. No.28 of 2002 before learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East, which was dismissed. The petitioner still being dissatisfied filed above-referred Constitutional petition and the same was dismissed on 29-8-2002 by the order, which has been impugned in this petition. We have heard the petitioner and perused the record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that notice given by the respondent No.1 was defective as through the notice, dated 20-9-2000 the respondent asked him to vacate the premises within 60 days whereas no such demand could be made due to the provisions of section 14 ibid , which clearly states that such demand could only be made after expiry of clear 60 days from the receipt of notice. From the portion of the impugned order quoted earlier, it is evident that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner and the proceedings were initiated against him after expiry of two months. The technicalities cannot be resorted to the extent of defeating the process of justice. Two Courts below and High Court have recorded the concurrent findings and reached the same conclusion upholding the demand of the respondent impugned Order of the High Court is strictly in accordance with law and no interference is warranted. In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. However, two months' time is granted to the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent from today. In case the above order is not complied with, the writ or possession shall be issued against the petitioner without notice to him with Police aid, if necessary. S.A.K./N-128/S Leave refused.