1969 PLP 814 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the second appeal preferred by the petitioner from the order of the Additional District Judge, Karachi, as an appellate authority under the Rent Restriction Ordinance is wholly without any substance. The building known as R. C. 10/4/7 No. IV‑A‑268 Gordhan Bhawan, Karachi, was transferred to the respondent under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabildation) Act, 1958, on the 6th of June 1962, and P. T. O. issued in his name. The petitioner who is in occupation of tenement No. 1/1 in that building thus became under section 30 of the Act a statutory tenant under the respondent. A notice to that effect was served on him as required by subsection (2) of section

30. As the petitioner committed default in payment of rent the respondent moved an application for his eviction under section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The matter eventually came before the High Court in a second appeal which was disposed of in accordance with the cotnpromise arrived at by the parties. It was agreed that rent payable by the petitioner will be tentatively fixed at Rs. 35 per month and he shall deposit the arrears by the 9th of June 1966, and future rent at that rate in the Court of the Rent Controller by the 15th day of each successive month. In case, however, the petitioner made a default his defence was to be automatically struck off under section 13(6) of the Ordinance without any further notice to him: The petitioner failed to deposit the rent stipulated in the consent order and consequent upon it, an order for his eviction was made by the Additional District Judge as appellate authority. In a second appeal before the High Court the petitioner contended that the respondent had undertaken to supply him with Photostat copies of the P. T. O. and P. T. D. issued in his name by the Settlement authorities which he failed to do. The petitioner was, therefore, not bound in law to acknowledge the respondent as his landlord. The plea did not find favour with the learned Judge and the appeal was dismissed from which the petitioner seeks leave to appeal. Counsel for the respondent has placed on record certified copy of the consent order dated 9th May 1966, by which Second Appeal No. 3 of 1966 was disposed of by Noorul Arfin, J. There is no mention in this order of the alleged undertaking. Otherwise too the petitioner was, in view of the agreement incorporated in that order, precluded from disputing the title of the respondent in, the present proceedings. In the circumstances the order passed by the High Court is not open to exception. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave refused.