1986 PLP 912 (MLD)

(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.16 & 21‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Appeal‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Provisions of S.5, Limitation Act, not‑applicable to proceedings under Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. (b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.16 & 21‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX Rr.l & 2‑‑Application for confirmation of ad interim stay‑‑Application for condonation of delay dismissed by Court below as not maintainable‑‑Defence of appellant appearing to have been struck off on account of non‑deposit of rent in time for which appellant was not able to assign any reason‑.‑ Application for confirmation of ad interim stay dismissed. Faizanul Haq for Appellant. Mr. Jamil‑ur‑Rehman Khan for the respondent opposes C.M.As. 638 and 639 of 1984. In respect of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 638 of 1984 it would be relevant to consider that in First Rent Appeal No.168 of 1980 Mr. Justice Naimuddin, an' Hon'ble Judge of this Court: has held that the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply to proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant's counsel has not been able to show me any authority contrary to that. This application therefore, appears to be misconceived. In any case the application for review filed after 5‑1‑1984 was not in order as in the first instance there was no provision, in law for entertaining such an application, nor the submission that the appellant had not been given a chance of being heard was justified, in view of the fact that the appellant's Advocate had absented himself for the whole day on 4‑1‑1984 when the arguments on the application under section 16(2) of the Sind.Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 were heard and the matter was fixed for order on the next date. The appellant's counsel did not even appear in' the early hours of the date before the Rent Controller and, therefore; the impugned order dated 5‑1‑1984 was passed against him. Consequently the application for review was misconceive die and not justified. Hence this application is dismissed as not maintainable.

2. Consequently it would be unjust in these circumstances to grant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 639 of 1984 or to confirm the ad interim stay granted on 17‑4‑1984 because the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been dismissed and even otherwise the defence of the appellant appears to have been struck off on account o non‑deposit of rent on 11th June, 1983 for which the appellant had no been able to assign any reason till 16‑2‑1984. Consequently Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 639 of 1984 is hereby dismissed. The appeal should now be fixed for hearing. M.Y.H. Condonation declined.