2009 PLP 2214 (YLR)
MAZHAR MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMED and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2214 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | MAZHAR MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMED and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2214 (YLR)?
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 2009 PLP 2214 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2214 (YLR) (MAZHAR MUSTAFA — Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMED and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Latifur Rehman Sarwari for Petitioner.
- Qaiser Ahmed Qureshi for Respondent No.1.
- On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has said that non-deposit of rent in compliance of tentative rent order was nothing but negligence on the part of the petitioner and such default could not be termed technical.
- Since the effect of withdrawal of rent by the landlord from the Misc. Rent Case before and after passing the tentative rent order was not considered by the Courts below therefore after arguing the matter at length, both the learned counsel have agreed that both the impugned orders be set aside and the case be remanded to the Rent Controller to decide the same on merits. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/ land lord has shown his anxiety for an earlier disposal of rent case as it was filed in the year 2003 and four years have already lapsed.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.16(1)(2) & 21
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Rent Controller passed tentative rent order directing tenant to deposit arrears of rent within stipulated period and also to deposit further monthly rent
Tenant having failed to comply with said tentative rent order, landlord filed application under S.16(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for striking off defence of tenant
Tenant subsequently deposited rent and gave explanation for non-compliance of tentative rent order within stipulated period
Explanation given by the tenant was not accepted and his defence was struck off and his appeal was also dismissed
Tenant had contended that landlord having withdrawn the rent before and after passing of tentative rent order, default, if any, was technical
Since the effect of withdrawal of rent by the landlord was not considered by the courts below, both the counsel had agreed that impugned orders be set aside and case be remanded to the Rent Controller to decide same on merits
Case was remanded with directions to Rent Controller to decide case on merits within stipulated period.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.
Through this petition, the petitioner has assailed the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby his defence was struck off for non-compliance of tentative rent order and the appeal was dismissed. Briefly, respondent No.1 initiated ejectment proceedings wherein the Rent Controller on 23-1-2004 passed a tentative rent order directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent in the main case within 30 days and also to deposit further monthly rent. The Rent Controller further granted adjustment of the rent already deposited in Misc. Rent Case No. 295/2002. The petitioner failed to comply with the tentative rent order leading to filing of application under section 16(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on 11-9-2004. Respondent No.1, thereafter, on 5-10-2004 deposited the rent as directed and submitted an explanation that since his counsel had an heart attack, therefore he (the counsel) was not in a position to inform him regarding the tentative rent order and therefore the same could not be complied with. The plea was not accepted and the defence of the tenant was struck off and the appeal was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No.1 has withdrawn rent from the Misc Rent Case on 22-7-2003, 4-12-2003 and 8-12-2004 i.e. before and after passing of tentative rent order, therefore default if any, is technical. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has said that non-deposit of rent in compliance of tentative rent order was nothing but negligence on the part of the petitioner and such default could not be termed technical. Since the effect of withdrawal of rent by the landlord from the Misc. Rent Case before and after passing the tentative rent order was not considered by the Courts below therefore after arguing the matter at length, both the learned counsel have agreed that both the impugned orders be set aside and the case be remanded to the Rent Controller to decide the same on merits. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/ land lord has shown his anxiety for an earlier disposal of rent case as it was filed in the year 2003 and four years have already lapsed. In the circumstances, this petition is disposed of in above terms and the Rent Controller is directed to decide the rent case on merits within 60 days and to report compliance to this Court through M.I.T. H.B.T./M-167/K Case remanded.