1982 PLP 1195 (SCMR)
PIR INAYAT SHAH‑Petitioner Versus AGHA MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1195 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafi‑ur‑Rehman, Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and Mushtaq Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | PIR INAYAT SHAH‑Petitioner Versus AGHA MUHAMMAD‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1195 (SCMR)?
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 1982 PLP 1195 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafi‑ur‑Rehman, Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and Mushtaq Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1195 (SCMR) (PIR INAYAT SHAH‑Petitioner Versus AGHA MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 8th October, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment of Baluchistan High Court, Quetta dated 20‑5‑1980 passed in F. A. O. No. 61 of 1979).
S. 13(6)‑Deposit of rent‑‑Tenant not required by law to go to deposit rent personally‑Any member of family or a servant could go and perform such duty‑Tenant admitting to have a scooter, contention that he could not deposit rent on appointed day due to illness, held, untenable.
Judgment & Decree
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.‑The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in House No. 8‑20/288‑B, Kansi Road, Quetta. The landlord applied for his ejectment on the ground that he had defaulted in payment of rent. The tenant contested the petition and the Rent Controller passed an order directing him to deposit the arrears of rent and to go on depositing the future rent by the 15th of each succeeding month.
2. The petitioner failed to deposit the rent for the months of July and October, 1978. He, however, neither brought these defaults to the notice of the Court nor did he ask for condonation of the delay.
3. When in March, 1979 the landlord applied for the striking off of the defence of the petitioner on this ground he explained the default on the ground of illness which was duly brushed aside by the Rent Controller and the appellate Courts. Hence this petition for Special leave to appeal.
4. It has been urged before us that the failure to deposit rent was on account of illness, a circumstance which was not under the petitioner's control. This is an untenable excuse since the petitioner was not required by law to go to deposit the rent personally and any member of the family of a servant could have gone and performed this duty. The petitioner admitted before us that he has a servant.
5. There is no force in this petition, which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.