1991 PLP 359 (SCMR)
KHALID HAMEED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 359 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | KHALID HAMEED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL 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 359 (SCMR)?
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 359 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 359 (SCMR) (KHALID HAMEED — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd September, 1989.
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 13-6-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Writ Petition No. 793 of 1989).
S.13(6)
Non-compliance of tentative rent order
Petitioner-tenant admittedly had failed to comply with order of Rent Controller to deposit arrears of rent as well as future rent
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner was a tenant under respondents Nos. 3 to 7 in a house situate in Sahiwal. The said respondents filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner on a number of grounds including the grounds of personal need, reconstruction and the default in the payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller made an order under section 13 (6). Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as well as the future rent by certain specified dates. The petitioner failed to comply with this order. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller struck off his defence and directed his ejectment. He filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed. He then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of ejectment. This was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed that the petitioner had failed to comply with the order made by the learned Rent Controller under section 13 (6), Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. It is however, stated that as in this case, the respondents had not taken the plea of default in the payment of rent for seeking his eviction, it was not open to the Rent Controller to make an order under the said provisions of the Ordinance. It is not necessary to examine this plea on the legal plane as it is factually incorrect, for, in paragraph 5 of their application, the respondents did allege that the petitioner had failed to pay the rent to them.
3. As non‑compliance with the order under section 13 (6) ibid, was not disputed, the defence of the petitioner was rightly struck off by the learned trial Court. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./K‑132/S Petition dismissed.