2009 SCMR 784 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NASEER — Petitioner Versus SAJID HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 2009 SCMR 784 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NASEER — Petitioner Versus SAJID HUSSAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 SCMR 784 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 SCMR 784 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 SCMR 784 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NASEER — Petitioner Versus SAJID HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th February, 2009.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 12-12-2008 of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in F.A.O. No.61 of 2008).
S. 17(8)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)
Default in deposit of arrears of rent
Eviction order was passed by Rent Controller on the ground that tenant failed to deposit arrears of rent before specified date
Plea raised by tenant was that non-deposit of arrears before fixed date was a bona fide mistake in interpreting order of Rent Controller, and could not be considered as default
Supreme Court declined to subscribe to interpretation of default made by tenant because it would be extremely convenient for every defaulting tenant to take the plea that he had fallen into a bona fide mistake in interpreting the order of Rent Controller
If any order specifically laid down that rent was to be deposited before the specified date, no party had a right to interpret that rent was to be deposited by such date
Supreme Court did not find any ambiguity in the order passed by Rent Controller as the same could not be interpreted otherwise and tenant was rightly ejected--Leave to appeal was refused. Sarfraz Khan v. Muhammad Abdul Rauf PLD 1969 Kar. 176 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.
Muhammad Naseer, the ejected tenant, seeks leave to appeal from the judgment dated 12-12-2008 of a learned Judge in the Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed.
2. During ejectment petition filed by the respondent, the Additional Cantonments Rent Controller Rawalpindi, on 23-10-2007, passed an order under section 17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,25,000 as specified arrears of rent before 30-10-2007. The order was not complied with accordingly and hence the tenant stood ejected.
3. The tenant deposited Rs.65,500 on 29-10-2007. Before that, he had already deposited Rs.59,500 on different dates. Keeping in view the exact date of deposits, the tenant had only deposited Rs.1,24,500 before the specified date 30-10-2007. A sum of Rs.100,000 was deposited on 30-1,0-2007 and a sum of Rs.500 is still outstanding. This was a clear violation of order dated 23-10-2007 and hence the petitioner was rightly ejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a single Bench judgment of Karachi High Court Sarfraz Khan v. Muhammad Abdul Rauf PLD 1969 Kar. 176 where it was held that the deposit of rent by a tenant on and not before the fixed date was a bona fide mistake in interpreting order of Controller and hence could not be considered a default.
5. We have gone through the above ruling and do not subscribe to the given interpretation because it would be extremely convenient for every defaulting tenant to take the plea that he had fallen into a bona fide mistake in interpreting the order of the Controller.
6. The correct and genuine interpretation would be that if an order specifically lays down that the rent is to be deposited before the specific date, no party has a right to interpret that the rent is to be deposited by such date. The petitioner has not filed the order dated 23-10 2007, yet from the ejectment order dated 12-8-2008 (PP-21) and the impugned order of the learned High Court, it manifestly clear that petitioner was directed to deposit the rent before 30-10 2007. There being no ambiguity, it could not be interpreted otherwise. The petitioner has rightly been ejected. There being no force in the petition, it is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused. M.H./M-19/SC Petition dismissed.