1991 PLP 1337 (MLD)

Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqi for Appellant No.2. Tufail A. Ibrahim for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th August, 1990. This rent appeal has been filed under Cantonments Rent Restriction Act. The order. dated 14-5-1988 of the Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantt. `Karachi, allowing the ejectment application tiled by the respondent/landlady has been challenged. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. There are two appellants. I had asked Mr. Tufail A. Ibrahim, learned counsel for the respondent, whether the respondent was claiming both appellants to be tenants, to which he replied that appellant No.2, Major General (Rid.) Ghulam Umar was the tenant. On behalf of the appellants also the learned counsel stated that Pakistan Institute of International Affairs was not tenant but Major-General (Rid.) Ghulam Umar was the tenant.

3. In this case an order under section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act was passed by the learned Rent Controller, inter alia, requiring deposit of future monthly rent by 10th of each succeeding month. An application tinder section 17(9) was filed on behalf of the respondent alleging default in deposit. By the impugned order, dated 14-5-1988 the Rent Controller allowed the application striking off the defence of the appellants and ordered their ejectment.

4. It was first contended by Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for appellant-No.2, that there was no default in deposit. Mr. Tufail A. Ibrahim learned counsel for the respondent, pointed out that instead of depositing monthly rent in time, the rent of June, July, August, September and October, 1987, was deposited in lump sum by appellant No.2 on 10-11-1987. 1 had asked Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui whether he could show receipts of deposit to challenge his assertion. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui showed me a receipt dated 10-11-1987. This receipt shows that a sum of Rs.42,500 was deposited on that date and it also shows that this was the rent from 10-6-1987 to 9-11-1987. It is case of admitted default. It was then contended by Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for appellant No.2, that the person who filed the ejectment application was not properly authorised inasmuch as the power of attorney given to him by the respondent was not properly authenticated. No such point was raised in the pleadings or before the Rent Controller. This has been admitted by Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, but his contention was that this was a point of law and could be urged even at the stage of this appeal. In the circumstances, 1 did not allow Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui to raise this question, as it had not been raised at all before the Rent Controller. As there is an admitted default, no case is made out for interference.

5. First Rent Appeal No.657 of 1988 is accordingly dismissed with no order to costs. H.B.T./P-1&5/K Appeal dismissed.