1987 PLP 1414 (SCMR)
Haji ABDUR RAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1414 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Haji ABDUR RAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1414 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1414 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1414 (SCMR) (Haji ABDUR RAHIM‑‑Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st May, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 14‑4‑1985 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 4849 of 1984) (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 13 (2)(i)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Writ jurisdiction‑‑Finding of fact by appellate Court after reappraisal of evidence‑‑Interference with ‑‑Ejectment‑‑Reappraisal of evidence by appellate Court‑‑Order set aside in appeal‑‑High Court declined to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Finding of fact by District Judge not suffering from any infirmity, Supreme Court also refused to interfere and dismissed petition for leave to appeal. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 13(2)(i)‑‑Ejectment on ground of default‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence by appellate Court‑‑Oral tenancy‑‑No evidence led to show whether rent was payable in advance or within a specified period‑ Ejectment application having been filed within sixty days of rent becoming due, held, respondent could not be said to have made a default‑‑Order setting aside ejectment in appeal, upheld in writ jurisdiction and Supreme Court refused to interfere.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner is the owner of a house. He had let out a portion of it to respondent No.2. He filed an application before the Rent Controller for the ejectment of respondent no.2 on the ground that the latter was a defaulter in the payment of rent. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller but on appeal by respondent No.2 the District Judge set aside the order of ejectment and dismissed the application. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to question the legality of the order of the District Judge but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court. ,
2. In his application before the Rent Controller, the petitioner alleged that respondent No.2 had not paid the rent for the months of April, May, June, July and August 1981. The application for eviction was filed in September, 1981. The tenancy was an oral one. No evidence was led by the petitioner to show that under the terms of the tenancy the rent was payable in advance or within a specified period. As the application for eviction was filed within 60 days of the rent for the months of July and August becoming due, respondent No.2 could not be said to have made a default in respect of the said two months.
3. Admittedly, respondent No. 2 had sent a cheque to the petitioner in June 1981 for an amount which was sufficient to cover the rent for the months of April, May and June 1981. It was dishonoured by the bank for the reason, solely, that the respondent No. 2 had written the words "On A/C of rental charges * * * * * "on it. It was not the petitioner's case that sufficient funds were not available in the account of respondent No.2 to meet the amount of the cheque. The controversy between the parties before the Rent Controller and the learned District Judge revolved round the question whether the petitioner had informed respondent No.2 about the refusal of the bank to honour the cheque. The learned Rent Controller found that the petitioner had in fact sent information in this regard to the respondent No.
2. On appeal the District Judge reappraised the evidence and come to a contrary conclusion. The High Court in writ jurisdiction declined to interfere with the finding of the learned District Judge.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not persuaded that the finding of the learned District Judge which was essentially on a question of fact suffered from any infirmity. We would accordingly dismiss this petition. M .I / A‑53 / S Petition dismissed