P L D (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑Petitioner Versus Haji CHAUDHRY UMAR BAKHSH AND ANOTHER
| Citation | P L D (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑Petitioner Versus Haji CHAUDHRY UMAR BAKHSH AND ANOTHER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ‑Petitioner Versus Haji CHAUDHRY UMAR BAKHSH AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raza A. Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 22nd February, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Peshawar dated 16‑1‑1982, passed in S. A. O. No. 64 of 1981). West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ S. 13‑B‑Eviction‑Notice‑Section 13‑B deals with question of default in payment of rent and protects tenant against such allegation Prescribed notice if not given by transferee landlord, tenant not deemed to have defaulted in payment of rent for purpose of S. 13(2)(ii) Default arises only when rent not paid within 30 days from date of notice ‑Ejectment application filed on grounds other than that of default in payment of rent, held, not affected by provisions of S. 13‑B and application for ejectment by transferee landlord on ground of personal requirement maintainable even though no notice under S. 13‑B served on tenant. Sabu Mal v. Kika Ram alias Heman Das 1973 S C M R 185 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑This is a petition by Muhammad ‑ Hussain (tenant) against the order of the Peshawar High Court dated 16‑1‑1982, dismissing his S. A. O. in a rent matter.
2. The facts leading to the petition are briefly that Haji Chaudbry Umar Bakhsh (respondent‑landlord) filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question, on the ground of requirement for personal use. The learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence; accepted the ejectment application and ordered petitioner's eviction. The appeal filed by him before the District Judge was also dismissed. He then filed an S. A. O. before the High Court, which too, met the same fate. Hence the present petition.
3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since Hajt Umar Bakhsh purchased the premises in questions from one Mst. Mumtaz Begum, its earlier owner under whom the petitioner was a tenant, he (Haji Umar Bakhsh) was required to give a notice to the petitioner under section 13‑B of the amended Rent Restriction Ordinance and since he (the petitioner) had not been served with such a notice, the application for his ejectment was not maintainable.
4. This ground has no force whatsoever, because a plain reading o the said section shows that it was only intended to protect a tenant against an allegation of default in payment for rent in case of absence of notice under this section informing him of the transfer of ownership of the premises in question. A decision has already been taken by this Court in Sabu Mal v. Kika Ram alias Heman Das 1973SCMR 185 wherein it has been held that "the languag employed in section 13 (A) (now 13‑B) of the Ordinance makes it abundantly clear, as observed by the High Court, that it only deals with on situation namely, the question of default in the payment of rent. If the A prescribed notice is not given by the transferee‑landlord then the tenant shall not be deemed to have defaulted in the payment of rent for the purpose of clause (i) of subsection (2) of section 13 of the Ordinance, and such default will arise only if the rent is not paid within 30 days from the date of the notice. In our view, the High Court was right in observing that, an ejectment application placed on grounds other than that of default in the payment o rent, is not at all affected by the provisions of section 13(A)". As such this petition has no force and is consequently dismissed. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.