1993 PLP 1701 (CLC)
Miss ABIDA REASAT RIZVI‑‑‑Appellant Versus FAZAL ELLAHI‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1701 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, J |
| Parties | Miss ABIDA REASAT RIZVI‑‑‑Appellant Versus FAZAL ELLAHI‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1701 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1701 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1701 (CLC) (Miss ABIDA REASAT RIZVI‑‑‑Appellant Versus FAZAL ELLAHI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aftab Ahmad for Appellant.
- Munawar Malik for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 15 (2) (ii)‑‑‑Default in payment of rent‑‑‑Tenant had contended that rent collector of landlord used to collect accumulated rent for several months at a time and when rent collector had not come to collect rent as usual, tenant had tendered that rent through money orders before landlord had filed ejectment proceedings against him on ground of default in payment of rent‑‑‑Tenant though had produced counterfoils of money orders, but those did not contain address at which same were sent‑‑‑Landlord, on the other hand denied that fact and stated that at no point of time he received any money order nor he refused to accept same‑‑‑Case was remanded with directions to allow parties to lead further evidence on question of default including examination of postal authorities.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 15 (2) (ii)‑‑‑Default in payment of rent‑‑‑Tenant had contended that rent collector of landlord used to collect accumulated rent for several months at a time and when rent collector had not come to collect rent as usual, tenant had tendered that rent through money orders before landlord had filed ejectment proceedings against him on ground of default in payment of rent‑‑‑Tenant though had produced counterfoils of money orders, but those did not contain address at which same were sent‑‑‑Landlord, on the other hand denied that fact and stated that at no point of time he received any money order nor he refused to accept same‑‑‑Case was remanded with directions to allow parties to lead further evidence on question of default including examination of postal authorities. Aftab Ahmad for Appellant. Munawar Malik for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th April, 1987. This appeal is directed against an order dated 7‑5‑1984 passed by a learned XVI Rent Controller at Karachi in Rent Case No.1001/83 dismissing the appellant's application for ejectment on the ground of default for the period commencing from October, 1982 to February 1983 at the rate of Rs.25 per month. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Aftab Alam Kizalbash and the learned counsel for _the respondent Mr. Munawwar Malik. I have also perused the record. The respondent has also filed an application under Order 41, rule 21 read with section 151, C.P.C. for production of additional evidence in the form of photostat copies of the rent receipts issued by the appellant's attorney indicating that the accumulated rent for several months was collected in the past. The defence of the respondent was that it was the practice that the appellant's rent collector used to collect accumulated rent for several months at a time and that since he had not come to collect the rent he had sent two money orders on 1‑3‑1982 and 6‑3‑1983 before filing of the rent case which was filed on 9‑3‑1983. He has produced the counterfoils of the money orders but they do not contain the address at which the same were sent. In the cross‑examination the tenant was asked to give the address at which the money orders were sent, his reply was that the same were sent at the proper address. It is the case of the appellant that at no point of time he received any money order nor he refused to accept. 3. 1 would allow the above appeal and remand the case to the learned Rent Controller with the direction to allow the parties to lead further evidence on the question of default including the examination of postal authorities. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1758/K Case remanded.