1980 PLP 750 (SCMR)
MAQBOOL AHMAD-Petitioner Versus BEGUM MUSARRAT SHAUKAT HAYAT KHAN Respondent
| Citation | 1980 PLP 750 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel and Nasim Hassan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MAQBOOL AHMAD-Petitioner Versus BEGUM MUSARRAT SHAUKAT HAYAT KHAN Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 750 (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 1980 PLP 750 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Dorab Patel and Nasim Hassan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 750 (SCMR) (MAQBOOL AHMAD-Petitioner Versus BEGUM MUSARRAT SHAUKAT HAYAT KHAN Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ahmad Hasan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 25th February, 1980.
- M. Ahmad Hasan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 7-2-1980 of the Lahore High Court in S. A. O. No. 47 of 1974). --S. 13(6)-Contention that as landlord could not demand rent beyond three years from date of his application, rent paid for period before date of such application could be adjusted towards rent pay. able in pursuance of order for deposit of rent made under S. 13(6) of Ordinance-Tenant having himself stated in challan as to rent being paid for period prior to one under claim and not being precluded from paying time-barred rent tenant could not ask such payment to be treated as rent for period claimed in application-Sum of money voluntarily appropriated towards a particular debt, same, held, cannot be adjusted against some other debt.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑The respondent was transferred on 6‑12‑1961 inter alia a quarter bearing No. 11‑A, Lawrance Road, Lahore. She served a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act on 18‑3‑1964 upon the petitioner intimating him of the factum of transfer and calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent as from the date of transfer and future monthly rent. The petitioner is stated to have deposited the rent from 6‑12‑1961 to 6‑6‑1964 in the Government Treasury with the permission of the Rent Con troller. On 18‑2‑1967, the respondent filed an ejectment application seeking ejectment of the petitioner, and in pursuance thereof an order passed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance on 18‑12‑1968 directing him to deposit the arrears of rent (past three years; from 1‑11‑1965 to 1‑11‑1968 at the rate of Rs. 6 per mensem). This order does not appear to have been com plied with according to its terms. Hence the defence of the petitioner was struck off and respondent ordered to be put in possession. The case of the petitioner is that as the respondent could not demand the rent beyond three years from the date of his application (9‑2‑1967), hen the rent paid for the period before this date could be adjusted towards the rent payable in pursuance of the order for deposit of rent made under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance on 18‑12‑1968, namely, for ten period from 1‑11‑1965 to 1‑11‑1968. As pointed out by the learned Rent Controller that although the respondent could not demand the rent beyond 9‑2‑1964 (as the application was Made on 9‑2‑1967), the petitioner was not precluded from paying time barred rent to the respondent. Having himself stated in the challan that the rent was for the period from 6‑12‑1961 to 6‑6‑1964 it did not lie in his mouth to say that this be treated as rent for the disputed period, We may add that where a sum of money has been volun tarily appropriated towards a particular debt, the same cannot thereafter be adjusted against some other debt. There is no force in this petition which is dismissed. However, the petitioner is allowed four months provided he continues to pay the monthly rent according to law. Petition dismissed.