1990 PLP 476 (SCMR)
Lahore and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AZRA MOHY‑UD‑DIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 476 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ |
| Parties | Lahore and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AZRA MOHY‑UD‑DIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 476 (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 1990 PLP 476 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Ghulam Mujaddid, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 476 (SCMR) (Lahore and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AZRA MOHY‑UD‑DIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Government Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 1‑2‑1989 in Writ Petition No. 53 of 1989). ‑‑‑S.13(6)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Non‑compliance ‑of Rent Controller's tentative rent order‑‑‑Tenant's defence struck off and ejectment ordered by Rent Controller‑‑‑Tenant's appeal and Constitutional petition dismissed and his eviction maintained by Courts below‑‑‑Rent Controller's order of eviction and Appellate Court's judgment were based on admitted position of failure; of tenants to comply with the order of Rent Controller by which they were directed to deposit specified arrears of rent and future rent‑‑‑Appellate Court had followed the rule laid down by Supreme Court in Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Jalil‑ur‑Rehman reported as 1986 S C M R 1705, that failure to comply with the direction of Rent Controller regarding deposit of rent entails the necessary consequence under S.13(6) of the Ordinance‑‑‑Tenant's plea On the ground that since the petitioner Government was running a school in demised premises, delay in deposit of rent be condoned was an appeal on compassionate grounds rather than law‑‑‑High Court had already allowed extra time to petitioners to vacate the premises‑‑‑Nothing more was justified‑‑‑Petition dish missed. Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Jalil‑ur‑Rehman 1986 S C M R 1705 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Jalil‑ur‑Rehman 1986 S C M R 1705 rel. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Government Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th June, 1989. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) dated 1‑2‑1989 whereby a Constitution petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. By that petition, petitioners sought to challenge the judgment o' Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and the order of the Rent Controller. Rawalpindi by which petitioners were directed to hand over possession of the demised premises to the first respondent‑‑the landlady‑‑after their defence to eviction application filed by the said respondent was struck off under the provisions of section 13(6) of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. We find that the impugned order of the Rent Controller and the judgment of the Additional District Judge are based on the admitted position of the failure of the petitioners to comply with the order of the Rent Controller dated 15‑3‑1988 by which they were directed to deposit Rs.8,000 being the arrears of rent from December, 1987 to 31‑3‑1988 and future rent from 1‑4‑1988 before 15th of every succeeding month. On the facts of the case, learned Additional District Judge has followed the rule laid down by this Court in Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Jalil‑ur‑Rehman (1986 S C M R 1705) that failure to comply with the direction of the Rent Controller regarding deposit of rent entails the necessary consequence under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, of the defence to eviction application against him being struck off, and his eviction from the demised premises, and in such a situation the Rent Controller has no power to ignore the delay in the deposit of rent by the tenant and save him from eviction. Learned counsel for the petitioners however vehemently urged that since the Provincial Government is running a school in the demised premises, the delay in the deposit of rent may be condoned. This plea is an appeal on compassionate grounds, rather in law, and the High Court has already allowed extra time to petitioners to vacate the premises. Nothing more is justified, and the petition is dismissed. A.A./G‑208/S Petition dismissed.