1986 PLP 318 (MLD)
ABDUL GHAFOOR — Appellant Versus SARWAT SAMINA SHAH — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 318 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Naimuddin, J |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR — Appellant Versus SARWAT SAMINA SHAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 318 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 318 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Naimuddin, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 318 (MLD) (ABDUL GHAFOOR — Appellant Versus SARWAT SAMINA SHAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza A. Rasheed for Appellant.
- Altaf K. Allana for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S.16--Arrears of rent--Determination--Rent Controller allowing tenant to adjust amount, if any, deposited in a rent case filed before, without determining exact amount of arrears to be deposited--Order of Rent Controller, held, defective--Order set aside and Controller directed to pass fresh oar according to law. Ali Jan v. Shujauddin P L D 1985 Kar. 698 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Mirza A. Rasheed for Appellant. Altaf K. Allana for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th December, 1985. This appeal is from the order dated 17‑4‑1985 whereby, the defence of the appellant has been struck off for non‑compliance of the order dated 9‑8‑1981.
2. By the said order the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.300 being the arrears of the rent from June, 1977 to July, 1981, at the rate of Rs.26 per month on or before 5‑10‑1981. The Controller however, allowed the opponent to adjust the amount of rent if any, deposited in Miscellaneous Rent Case No. 3531 of 1979. This order is defective as the Controller has not determined the exact amount of arrears after allowing adjustment of the amount of rent if any, deposited by the appellant and is therefore, hit by the rule laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Jan v. Shujauddin PLD 1985 Kar.
698. I would, therefore, set aside the impugned order relating to deposit of the arrears of rent and direct the Controller to pass a fresh order according to law.
3. I may however clarify that so far as the order as to deposit of future rent is concerned questioned before me by Mirza Abdul Rasheed, Advocate.
4. Mr. Altaf K. Allana, Advocate for the respondent states that the appellant has also not complied with the order of the Controller as to deposit of the future rent. If it is so, the respondent shall be at liberty to make fresh application before the Controller for striking off the defence for non‑compliance of the order, which application if made, shall be decided according to law.
5. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. M . Y . H . Appeal accepted.