1979 PLP 646 (CLC)

The appellant has filed this' appeal challenging concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the two Courts below. The brief facts as are relevant for disposal of the appeal are as under :-

2. The respondent, who is the landlord of the disputed premises, filed an application under section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for an order of eviction of the appellant on the ground that she had committed default in payment of rent from 10th August 1970, to 30th of April 1973, amounting to Rs.

594. The appellant in her written statement dated 31-10-1974 admitted the fact with regard to ownership of the premises and her tenancy in respect of the disputed premises. Nonetheless it appears that on some plea taken up later, the learned .Rent Controller framed a preliminary issue on 4th of April 1974, as to whether a notice under section 13-A of the Rent Ordinance was served on the appellant. The learned Rent Controller passed a tentative rent order on 20th July 1974, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and directed that arrears amounting to Rs. 846 should be deposited by the tenant before 15th September 1974, and she was also directed to deposit future monthly rent before 15th of each succeeding English Calendar month. The appellant failed to deposit the amount of arrears of rent with the result that the respondent made an application on 19-11-1974 under section 13(6) of the Ordinance asking for stricking off the defence of the appellant. The appellant in her objection to the said application dated 18-1-1975 stated that she had in fact paid the amount of Rs. 846 to one Salim who used to look after the case but the said person bad misappropriated the amount and thus no case for wilful default in not complying with the order of the learned Rent Controller was made out. The learned Rent Controller allowed the application of the respondent by his order dated 21-5-1975 and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent within a month. This order was challenged in appeal, and inter alia, it was contended that since a preliminary issue with regard to non-service of notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance was framed by the learned Rent Controller the latter had failed to apply his mind to the said aspect of the case and, in the circumstances the of ejectment was passed illegally. The learned Additional District Judge first proceeded to decide the question as to whether there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and by making reference to the written statement of the appellant herself, he came to the conclusion that the fact with regard to the ownership as well as tenancy stood admitted and there was no justification for framing of a preliminary issue with regard to service of any notice under section 13-A of the Rent Ordinance. The learned Additional District Judge, thereafter examined the case on merits and concurred with the finding of the learned Rent Controller that the appellant had committed default in complying with the order of the Rent Controller for making deposit of rent.

3. Mr. S. Nasiruddin, learned Advocate for the respondent, has taken me through the record of the case although no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel relied upon the written statement of the appellant in which she had admitted the ownership of the respondent as well as her attorney in respect of the disputed premises. It. the circumstances, exception can be taken to the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the framing of preliminary issue with regard to service of any notice under section 13-A of the Ordinance was unwarranted and the learned Rent Controller was justified in straightaway passing order for the ejectment of the appellant.

4. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merits in this appeal as there are concurrent findings of fact on the issue of default and there are no extenuating circumstances in favour of the appellant. It: the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.