1998 PLP 1340 (SCMR)
Mst. RASHIDA RANI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AZIZ BEGUM‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1340 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Fazal Ilahi Khan and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. RASHIDA RANI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AZIZ BEGUM‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1340 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1340 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Fazal Ilahi Khan and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1340 (SCMR) (Mst. RASHIDA RANI and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AZIZ BEGUM‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Petitioners in person, Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th June, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of Lahore High, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 11‑10‑1994 passed in W.B. 817/94). ‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑‑Such petition was barred by 93 days for which no cogent explanation was offered‑‑‑Impugned order passed by the High Court was a consent order and the petitioner not only acted in 'said order but also derived benefit under the same‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in ~'y circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.
The petitioners who were tenant of respondent in respect of House No.B/506, Street No.24, Naya Mohallah, Rawalpindi, were ordered to be evicted by the Rent Controller, Rawalpindi, in an ejectment case filed on the grounds of default in payment of rent, damage to the rented premises and personal and bona fide requirement of the premises by the respondent, on account of non-compliance of the direction of Rent Controller passed under section 13(6) of Rent Restriction Ordinance. The petitioners were required to deposit the arrears of rent as well as the current monthly rent under the orders of Rent Controller dated 2-9-1993, before 7-11-1993 and 15th of each month respectively. The petitioners moved the Rent Controller for review of the tentative rent order dated 2-9-1993 on 12-10-1993 which was dismissed on 3-11-1993. The petitioners in spite of dismissal of their application for review of tentative rent order failed to comply with the order dated 2-9-1993, resulting in the striking of their defence in the case. The Rent Controller as well as the first appellate Court did not accept the explanation offered by the petitioners for the default in compliance with the order dated 2-9-1993. The learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners on the basis of the joint statement of the counsel for the parties on 11-10-1994 as follows:- "
2. After arguing this matter at some length, learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner shall continue to occupy the rented premises till 31-3-1995. On or before that date, they will hand over vacant possession to the respondent No.3 or her counsel. In the course of trial of this matter before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court, the petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs.19,000 as rent due, to the land-lady, which was assessed at Rs.1000 per month tentatively by the Rent Controller. The respondent-landlady shall withdraw this sum of Rs.19,000 and this should be the entire rent payable till 31-3-1995 and no other sum shall be paid to the landlady on account of rent due." The petitioners are now seeking leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 11-10-1994. Besides, the facts that the petition is barred by 93 days for which: no cogent explanation is offered, the petitioners cannot be permitted to question the validity of order dated 11-10-1994 which is a consent order and the petitioners not only acted in it but also derived benefit under it. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. M.B.A/R.18/S Petition dismissed.