M L D 3588 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AZIZ — Appellant Versus Syed QUDRAT ALI — Respondent
| Citation | M L D 3588 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Haider Ali Pirzada, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZIZ — Appellant Versus Syed QUDRAT ALI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in M L D 3588 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case M L D 3588 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Haider Ali Pirzada, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: M L D 3588 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AZIZ — Appellant Versus Syed QUDRAT ALI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qaisar Qureshi for Appellant.
- Rehmat Ellahi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 29th March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 16--Striking off defence--Tentative rent order--Counsel for tenant had conceded that tenant had not complied with Rent Controller's order to deposit rent--Tenant had not submitted any plausible explanation about non-compliance with that order--Order of Rent Controller striking off defence of tenant was upheld.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 29th March, 1987. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5-4-1982 and 12-3-1986 passed by the VIth Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, whereby struck off the defence of the 'appellant and directed him to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the respondent within thirty days from the date of the order. The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent is the landlord of Property No. 3/714, Liaquatabad, Karachi-19 and the appellant is tenant in respect of a shop at the monthly rent of Rs.
125. The respondent filed eviction application No. 1043/81 (New No. 2395/85) against .the appellant, Allah Baksh and Mohammad Umer on the ground of sublet and personal requirement. The appellant resisted the eviction application. The respondent filed an application under section 16 (1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Controller by order dated 5-4-1982 directed the appellant "to deposit the arrears of rent from February, 1981 to March 1982, at the rate of Rs. 125 only p.m. The amount deposited in Misc. Rent Application No. 986/81, vide Ledger No. 1901, be adjusted towards the arrears of rent in this Court. The opponent is further directed to deposit future rent at the rate of Rs. 125 only p.m., before the 10th day of each following month. The respondent filed an application under Section 16(2) of the Ordinance on the plea that the appellant failed to deposit the arrears of rent from February 1981 to March, 1982 and future rent as directed. The Controller taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties allowed the application vide order dated 12-3 1986. The appellant filed this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the impugned orders. I have perused application for withdrawal of rent dated 11-2 1985. A perusal thereof shows that the appellant did not deposit any rent in Ledger No. 2005/31 and 1901/81(misc) .... Admittedly the tentative order was assed on 5; 4-1982. I have perused the Nazir's report dated 24-2-86. A perusal hereof shows that on 1-4-1982, the appellant deposited Rs. 125 and thereafter he deposited rent on 3-7-1982 in Misc: Rent Case appellant deposited rent on 2-5-1982 and 1-6-1982 and thereafter he did not deposit any rent in this case. The appellant has not complied with the tentative order and has not deposited any rent after 1-6-1982 in the Rent Case No. 1043/81. The learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that the appellant has not complied with the order. The appellant has not submitted any plausible explanation about non-compliance with the order. The appellant was aware of the order as the same was passed in the presence of his counsel. He has deliberately deposited the rent in the other ledger. There is no plausible explanation for this lapse on his part. It seems that the Controller has rightly struck off the defence of the appellant. The appeal was dismissed by a short order dated 29-3-1987 on conclusion of the arguments and the above are the reasons for the said short order. M.Y.H./M-789/K Appeal dismissed.