1982 PLP 88 (SCMR)
KALEY KHAN-Petitioner Versus JAMIA MASJID AKSE JAMIL-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 88 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KALEY KHAN-Petitioner Versus JAMIA MASJID AKSE JAMIL-Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 88 (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 1982 PLP 88 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 88 (SCMR) (KALEY KHAN-Petitioner Versus JAMIA MASJID AKSE JAMIL-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- -- S. 13(6)-Default in payment of rent-Striking off defence-Counsel for petitioner leaving Court of Rent Controller for some time with permission but never coming back to find out orders passed in case -Case, held, one of clear negligence on part of counsel as well as client and Rent Controller fortified in striking off defence Leave to appeal. refused-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).
- M. A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing :13th December, 1980.
- ‑‑ S. 13(6)‑Default in payment of rent‑Striking off defence‑Counsel for petitioner leaving Court of Rent Controller for some time with permission but never coming back to find out orders passed in case -Case, held, one of clear negligence on part of counsel as well as client and Rent Controller fortified in striking off defence Leave to appeal. refused‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).
- M. A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 25-10-1980 in Writ Petition No. 7270 of 1968).
Judgment & Decree
M. A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing :13th December, 1980. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑Respondent/landlord filed an application for ejectment of the tenant/petitioner from the property in dispute. In that case the petitioner was required to deposit the arrears of rent and also the future rent but as this order was not complied with, the defence of the petitioner was struck off on 17‑9‑1978 and his eviction was ordered. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 2‑1‑1980. He filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 199/80, which however, abated on 25‑6‑1980 due to the change of the law on the subject.
2. At that stage the petitioner filed a constitutional petition being P. W. 7270/80 but without any success as the same was dismissed by the High Court on 25‑10‑1980. The petitioner has now come up in a petition for leave to appeal against that order to this Court.
3. The only point which was argued before the High Court by the petitioner was that the default in the deposit/payment of rent was not lawful inasmuch as his counsel before the Rent Controller had left the Court with his permission for sometime and for that reason the relevant order which was passed on the aforesaid date was not in the know, ledge of the petitioner. All the Courts below did not accept the plea as sufficient to take the petitioner out of his relevant liability and held that if the counsel concerned had left the Court for sometime it was duty to later find out as to what order had been passed in the case on that date. But as he never cared to so it showed a clear negli gence both on his part and as well as his client. Learned counsel ha argued that this view of the Courts below is not correct. We fin' nothing wrong either in principle or on the factual aspect of the case above mentioned.
4. The result is that this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
5. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.