1985 PLP 170 (SCMR)
ISLAM RIFFAT SIDDIQUI — Appellant Versus MAHMOOD ABID RIZVI — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 170 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Qadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | ISLAM RIFFAT SIDDIQUI — Appellant Versus MAHMOOD ABID RIZVI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 170 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), (b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 170 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Qadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 170 (SCMR) (ISLAM RIFFAT SIDDIQUI — Appellant Versus MAHMOOD ABID RIZVI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zaheeruddin Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ahmadullah Farooqi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Shahenshah Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th September, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Sind High Court, dated 30-3-1983 passed in First Rent Appeal No. 980 of 1982).
Art. 185(3)--Sind Rented Premises. Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.16(2)--Rent Controller striking off defence of tenant for non-compliance of order of deposit of rent--Rent Controller on 5-5-1981 directed tenant to deposit arrears of rent from September, 1980 to April 1981 at the rate of Rs.900 p.m. within thirty days--Tenant depositing Rs.3,600 or 21-5-1981 and Rs.8,100 on 4-7-1981--Leave to appeal granted to consider whether on admitted facts of case, tenant could be held guilty of non-compliance of orders of Rent Controller made under S 16(2) o1 Ordinance, 1979.
S.16(2)--Order of Rent Controller to deposit arrear of rent to tenant--Non-compliance with such order--Bank drafts having admittedly been issued in the name of landlord, and not of the Court, held, could not be treated to be a deposit in compliance of order of Rent Controller.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the High Court whereby his appeal from the order of the Controller striking off his defence for non-compliance of an order of deposit of rent, was dismissed. By the order made on 5-5-1981, the Controller had directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent from September, 1980 to April, 1981 at the rate of Rs.900 p.m. within thirty days. The appellant deposited Rs.3,600 on 21-5-1981 and Rs.8,100 on 4-7-1981. This was held to amount to a wilful and negligent defiance of the deposit order and accordingly his defence was struck out.
2. Leave was granted to -consider whether on the admitted facts of the case, the appellant could be held guilty of non-compliance of the Controller's order made under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. The submission of learned counsel in this regard is that the question of non-compliance did not arise because two bank drafts more than sufficient in value to cover the deficit amount had already been issued in favour of the landlord and the same are lying with the Controller. The Controller, it appears from the deposit order, took due note of these two bank drafts which had been produced before him by the landlord but nevertheless proceeded to make the order in terms already mentioned above. The contention does not appeal to have been raised before the Controller, where the plea taken was that the delay was on account of the summer vacations. The contention was, however, taken before the High Court but it did not consider the bank drafts to amount to payment to the landlord. In any case the bank drafts having admittedly been issued in the name of the landlord, and not of the Court could not be treated to be a deposit in compliance of the order, No case is, therefore, made out for interference with the concurrent decision of the Courts below. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Z.M Appeal dismissed