1991 PLP 1680 (CLC)
Syed MUHAMMAD ASGHAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD NAZIR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1680 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD ASGHAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD NAZIR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1680 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1680 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1680 (CLC) (Syed MUHAMMAD ASGHAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD NAZIR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Munawar Hussain for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing:6th May, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 13 & 13‑A‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.1, 8.10 & O.V11, R.11‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant on ground of default in payment of rent‑‑‑During pendency of ejectment application, property in question, was sold by original landlady in favour of contesting respondent whose application to be impleaded as a party in place of original landlady, was granted by Rent Controller‑‑‑Tenant's application for rejection of application on ground of absence of notice under S.13‑A, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was however, rejected‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Question as to whether ejectment application could proceed in absence of notice under provision of S.13‑A, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance was yet to be decided‑‑‑Tenant, could if so advised, raise such objection in written statement to be filed by him to the amended ejectment application‑‑‑Interference at present stage of proceedings thus would be premature‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing:6th May, 1991. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 assails the orders dated 6th of December, 1990 passed by the Rent Controller at Lahore whereby he accepted the application filed by respondent No.l under Order 1, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party and rejected the application under Order VII, rule ll of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that on 17th of September, 1988, Mrs. Naseem Nasir Bukhsh, filed an application under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1973 against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. It appears that during the pendency of this application, the property in dispute was sold by the lady to respondent No.l through registered deed of sale dated 30th of January, 1990. An application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. was filed by respondent No.l for being substituted as a petitioner in place of Mrs. Naseem Nasir Bukhsh the previous landlady. The application was resisted by the petitioner who also filed an application under Order VII, rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the ejectment petition on the ground that in the absence of service of the notice under Section 13-A the ejectment petition was not maintainable.
3. Mian Munawar Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed the same arguments as were raised before the Rent Controller namely that in the absence of a notice under Section 13-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 respondent No.l could not have been substituted as a petitioner in place of Mrs. Naseem Nasir Bukhsh, and further that in the absence of specific transfer of the right to recover the previous rent, respondent No.l could not be allowed to continue the ejectment petition.
4. Unfortunately no copy of the sale-deed has been placed on record by the petitioner and, therefore, the last argument of the learned counsel cannot be adverted to.
5. So far as the first contention is concerned, suffice it to say the question as to whether the ejectment petition can proceed in the absence of a notice under Section 13-A of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is yet to be decided. The petitioner may, if so advised, raise this objection in the written statement to be filed by him to the amended ejectment petition. It would be premature to interfere at this stage of the proceedings. As a result of what has been stated above this petition is disposed of with the above observation. No order as to costs. AA./M-2992/L Petition dismissed.