1982 PLP 616 (SCMR)
GULZAR AHMAD PIRZADA-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 616 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GULZAR AHMAD PIRZADA-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 616 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 616 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 616 (SCMR) (GULZAR AHMAD PIRZADA-Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑ S. 13(6)‑Default‑Defence, striking off‑Tenant an Advocate delaying deposit of rent, as ordered by Rent Controller, for more than one month‑Contention as to delay of only one day in each case being due to misunderstanding on part of petitioner with regard to time of payment, default could not be termed as deliberate disobedience of Rent Controller's order‑Defaulter being an Advocate cannot be assumed to have misunderstood order in question and as such his plea not sustainable.
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehdi Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- 3. The facts of that case are distinguishable from those of the case is hand. In the first place, the defaulter in the present case was himself an Advocate who cannot be assumed to have misunderstood the order in question by any one and secondly one day's default in that case was only in respect of rent of one month only.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 6th December, 1981. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑The petitioner has sought Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 17‑11‑1981 in a rent case. The petitioner had taken on rent a portion of Property No. S. 60/R‑17, commonly known as 4‑Mozang Road, Lahore, from Sayed Naeem Ahmad respondent No. 3 on a rent of Rs. 250 per month. The landlord filed an application for his ejectment on various grounds. The learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 31‑3‑1979, ordered the petitioner to deposit the rent under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, before the 15th of every succeeding month. Issues were then framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence was led. After the parties had concluded their evidence and arguments were heard, the respondent‑landlord filed an application for striking off the petitioner's defence on the ground that he had not deposited the rent for 7 months, in time, and was late by one day in each case. The learned Rent Controller heard the learned counsels for the parties and considered the grounds for delay urged by the petitioner's counsel and found that he had no good excuse to offer for the delay in depositing the rent for the months of January, 1980 and January, 1981. He, therefore, struck off the petitioner's defence and ordered his ejectment. The petitioner filed an appeal which too was dismissed. He then filed a writ petition before the High Court which also met the same fate. Hence the present petition for Leave to Appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the was delay of only one day in each case due to misunderstanding on the part of the petitioner who thought that he was required to deposit the rent on or before the 15th of each month. As such he was 'not guilty o deliberately disobeying the order of the Court. He submitted that Leave has been granted on the question dealt with in Ch. Muhammad Siddiq v. Muhammad Rashid 1982 S C M R 536.
3. The facts of that case are distinguishable from those of the case is hand. In the first place, the defaulter in the present case was himself an Advocate who cannot be assumed to have misunderstood the order in question by any one and secondly one day's default in that case was only in respect of rent of one month only.
4. We therefore find no force in the petition which is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.