1968 SCMR 386 (PLP)
AKBAR HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus M. M. K. A. ZAI-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 386 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | AKBAR HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus M. M. K. A. ZAI-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 386 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 386 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 386 (PLP) (AKBAR HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus M. M. K. A. ZAI-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Salima Nasiruddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 19th Septemlier 1967, in Second Appeal No. 215 of 1964). Appeal to Supreme Court-New plea-Appeal from order passed by High Court in second appeal-Appellant not permitted to raise mixed question of fact and law for first time in appeal before Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and older of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan at Karachi passed in a second appeal. The petitioner, a tenant of Flat No. 3/4, of Raja Mansion, Karachi, made default in the payment of rent. The respondent to whom they said property had been transferred by the Rehabilita tion Department, filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for ejectment of the said tenant. The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent in four instalments and also to pay the current rent. The tenant did not comply with the said order and hence the Rent Controller ordered for his ejectment. His order was upheld on appeal by the District Judge and in a second appeal by a learned Single Judge of the High Court also. The tenant now seeks special leave to appeal against the above orders. Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that as no proper notice as required under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was served on the petitioner, the respondent's petition for ejectment ought to have been dismissed. It, however, appears from the grounds of appeal that no such point was taken by the petitioner in either of the appellate courts. Only two points were taken before the first appellate Court, namely:- (i) that failure to deposit the current rent did not amount to default because it was the result of tenant's forgetfulness; and (ii) that Mr. Nasir Ahmad (the Rent Controller) had no authority and jurisdiction to act as a Rent Controller in this case. The District Judge overruled both the contentions and dismissed ( the appeal. Second appeal was admitted to consider only the second point, namely, whether Mr. Nasir Ahmad was competent to act as Rent Controller. When the second appeal came up for hearing the learned Counsel for the tenant conceded that in view of the West Pakistan Second Amendment Ordinance XXXVIII of 1962, the objection as to the competency of the Rent Controller was not sustainable. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a mixed question of fact and law for the first time at this stage. This petition is therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.