1986 PLP 300 (MLD)
Mst. JAINA HAJIANI and 3 others‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. AMINA BAI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 300 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Haider Ali Pirzada, J |
| Parties | Mst. JAINA HAJIANI and 3 others‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. AMINA BAI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 300 (MLD)?
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 1986 PLP 300 (MLD)?
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: 1986 PLP 300 (MLD) (Mst. JAINA HAJIANI and 3 others‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. AMINA BAI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui for Appellants.
- Muhammad Hanif Khudai Ansari for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th January, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.15(2) (ii) a 21‑‑Eviction of tenant‑‑Wilful default‑‑Proof‑‑Wilful and deliberate default committed by tenant in payment of rent having .been proved by unrebutted evidence on record, Rent Controller, held, rightly‑ a‑allowed eviction application of landlady on ground of default.
Judgment & Decree
(2) Rent for the months paid and deposited in Court vide Court Receipt No.7481, dated 9‑10‑1969????? Rs. 34 (3) Rent for two months vide Court Receipt? No.17546, dated 22‑2‑1969 Rs. 34 (4) Rent for two months vide Court Receipt? No.1961, dated 20‑11‑1968 Rs. 33 (5) Rent for two months vide Court Receipt No.24347, dated?? Rs. 48 (6) Rent for two months vide Court Receipt No.15084, dated 2‑1‑1970 Rs. 120 (7) Rent for four months vide Court Receipt No.27909, dated 16‑5‑1970 Rs. 68 (8) Rent for two months vide Court Receipt No.5536, dated 31‑8‑1970 Rs. 34 (9) Receipt Lost No.10971, dated 25‑11‑1971 Rs. 34 (10) Rent receipt lost No.14511, dated 25‑11‑1971???? Rs.51 (11) Receipt No.19232, dated 11‑1‑1972 Rs. 128 Rs.17 The original tenant filed rent account on 24‑11‑1972. I perused the same. According to that rent account deposited arrears of rent upto 20‑7‑1968 vide Receipt No.2021, dated 20‑7‑1968 Rs.260. It is pertinent to note that Miscellaneous Rent Application No.2 of 1967 was filed on 2‑12‑1967. This application was granted on 26‑2‑1968 and he was allowed to deposit Rs.221. But he did not deposit the amount on 26‑2‑1968. He deposited Rs.260 on 20‑7‑1968 after lapse of five months. On 17‑11‑1981 the appellants filed objections to application under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 and stated therein that out of Rs.2,
958. Rent for 174 months, they deposited a sum of Rs.1,147 as per Nazir's reports, dated 29‑4‑72 and 26‑7‑1977. As per Nazir's report, dated 16‑2‑1982 that the appellants and, or the original tenant did not deposit any rent in Miscellaneous Rent Application No.2 of 1967. According to this report the appellants deposited Rs.260, vide receipt No.2021 on 20‑7‑1968. This payment pertains to arrears of rent upto 20‑7‑1968. After 20‑7‑1968, he deposited Rs.34 vide Receipt No.748, dated 9‑10‑1968. This clearly shows that no payment was deposited in August or September, 1968. He deposited Rs.34 on 21‑11‑1968 vide, receipt No.10106. It seems that the original tenant was not regular in depositing rent as he asserted in the written statement. It seems that the original tenant committed wilful default. It seems that the learned Rent Controller has rightly, held that the original tenant wilfully and deliberately not only failed to pay rent to the respondent but he committed default in depositing rent regularly even in the Miscellaneous Rent Application. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same was dismissed by short order, dated 15‑1‑1986 and above are the reasons for the same. H . B . T .???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.