1975 PLP 356 (SCMR)
Miss E. ANDREWS-Petitioner Versus NIAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 356 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and |
| Parties | Miss E. ANDREWS-Petitioner Versus NIAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908 ) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 356 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908 ) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 356 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 356 (SCMR) (Miss E. ANDREWS-Petitioner Versus NIAZ AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 7th March 1975.
- A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated 20-12-1974 in IInd Appeal No. 74 of 1970). -- S. 5-Condonation of delay-Explanaif6n" for delay concurrently rejected by all subordinate Courts--Petitioner's explanation that failure to deposit arrears of rent as ordered by Rent Controller was due to failure of counsel to intimate order passed by Tribunal factually incorrect-petitioner admitting in her statement of her counsel having told her that "she was to deposit rent but he omitted to mention the exact amount"-Petitioner nevertheless guilty of lathes in not enquiring from her counsel amount and date by which arrears were to be deposited and for not doing so for six months-No case for condonation of delay, held, made out. Ghulam Muhammad Khan Londkhor v. Safdar Ali P L D 1967 S C 530 ref.
Judgment & Decree
A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 7th March 1975. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑,The petitioner R‑as a tenant of Plot No. 2‑R.B.6/106, Krishan Chand Narumal Building, Arambagh Road, Karachi, under respondents Nos. I to 7 at a monthly rent of Rs.
50. On 2‑7‑1967, the respondents filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on basis of default in payment of rent. On 5‑8‑1968, the Controller made an order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, requiring the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent in four monthly instalments and payment of future rent before the 15th day of each subsequent month, The petitioner again made a default whereupon the Controller struck off her defence on 21‑9‑1968. In the absence of opposition, order for eviction of the petitioner was passed on 1 4‑7‑1969. On 11‑2‑1969, the petitioner moved the Controller for permission to deposit arrears of rent pleading that her counsel had failed to intimate to her the order passed by the Controller under section 13(6). The explanation offered by the petitioner has been rejected concurrently by the Controller, the District Judge sad a learned Judge of the High Court and order of her eviction maintained. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal claiming that there is no deliberate default on her part and that it was a fit case to condone the delay as was held by this Court in Ghulam Muhammad Khan Londkhor v. Safdar Ali (P L D 1967 S C 530). The plea raised is factually incorrect. It is pointed out by the Addi tional District Judge who dismissed the petitioner's appeal that in her statement she admitted that her counsel had told her that she was to deposit rent but he omitted to mention tee exact amount. Even if the statement is accepted the petitioner is, however, guilty of laches in not inquiring from her counsel the amount as well as the date by which the arrears of rent were to be deposited and also in not depositing the current rent for a period of more than six months. On these facts, it was hardly a case for condonation of delay. The intention of the Legislature is manifest by the provision that In case of default, the Controller shall strike off the tenant's defence. The order passed by the Controller is thus fully justified and rightly maintained, on appeal, by the District Judge and the High Court. Leave to appeal is refused and the petition dismissed. Petition dismissed.