CLC 2019

2019 PLP 1774 (CLC)

CUSTOM PUBLIC SCHOOL through Liaison Officer — Petitioner Versus AFTAB AHMED and 2 others — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh
Decided Date
2019-May-6
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2019 PLP 1774 (CLC)
Forum / Court Sindh
Bench Members N/A
Parties CUSTOM PUBLIC SCHOOL through Liaison Officer — Petitioner Versus AFTAB AHMED and 2 others — Respondent
Primary Law Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1774 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1774 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1774 (CLC) (CUSTOM PUBLIC SCHOOL through Liaison Officer — Petitioner Versus AFTAB AHMED and 2 others — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)

Representation

  • Abdul Nabi Joyo for Petitioner.
  • Aftab Ahmed for Respondent No.1, present in person.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss.15 & 21

Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5

Eviction of tenant

Condonation of delay in filing appeal

Scope

Petitioner/tenant filed appeal along with an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condoning the delay

Only ground urged by the petitioner before the appellate Court was that his attorney fell sick due to which he was advised bed rest, in support of contention a medical certificate was filed

Validity

Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal as being barred by limitation, held that the explanation was not satisfactory as the petitioner was a school having a proper administration and management for running its affairs and the appeal could have been filed by the petitioner within time through any other of its representatives

Application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing appeal was misconceived and not maintainable as the provisions of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 were not applicable to appeal filed under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Provision of S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 could not be invoked for condoning the delay in filing appeal, is special law had specifically provided the limitation for filing an appeal

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was a special law wherein the limitation for filing an appeal had been specifically provided in its S.21

Appellate Court was not required either to consider the petitioner's application for condonation or to give any findings thereon

Said application ought to have been dismissed straightaway

Appeal was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Court as being barred by time

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

NADEEM AKHTAR, J.

This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against order dated 16.02.2019 passed by the learned appellate Court whereby First Rent Appeal No.224/2018 filed by the petitioner against the order of its eviction was dismissed as being barred by limitation. The order for eviction of the petitioner was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 31.05.2018 under subsection (2) of section 16 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, as the petitioner had failed to comply with the tentative rent order passed under subsection (1) of Section 16 ibid. Appeal against the order of its eviction could be filed by the petitioner within thirty (30) days from the date of such order under Section 21 of the above Ordinance. However, the appeal was filed on 10.09.2018 after about three months and ten (10) days of passing of the order and after more than two (02) months of expiration of the prescribed period of limitation. As the appeal was barred by time, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay. The only ground urged by the petitioner before the learned appellate Court was that its attorney had fallen sick due to which he was advised bed rest from 01.08.2018 to 10.09.2018, and in support of this contention a medical certificate was filed. While dismissing the appeal as being hopelessly barred by limitation, it was held by the learned appellate Court that the explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal was not satisfactory as the petitioner was a school having a proper administration and management for running its affairs, and thus the appeal could have been filed by the petitioner within time through any other of its representatives. It may be observed that the above application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was misconceived and not maintainable as the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, are not applicable to the appeals filed under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haji Hussain Haji Dawood through Legal Heirs and others v. M.Y. Kherati, 2002 SCMR

343. It is well-settled that if a special law specifically provides the limitation for filing an appeal under that law, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, cannot be invoked for condoning the delay in filing an appeal under that special law nor can the delay be condoned under the said Section

5. Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is a special law wherein the limitation for filing an appeal has been specifically provided in Section

21. In view of this legal position, the learned appellate Court was not required either to consider the petitioner's application for condonation or to give any findings thereon, and the said application ought to have been dismissed straightaway in view of the above principle. Be that as it may, the appeal was rightly dismissed by the learned appellate Court as being hopelessly barred by time. Accordingly, the present petition, being misconceived and having no merits, is dismissed along with listed application MQ/C-7/Sindh Petition dismissed.