1983 PLP 1118 (SCMR)
SHAMSUDDIN-Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIRAN AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1118 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAMSUDDIN-Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIRAN AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1118 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1118 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1118 (SCMR) (SHAMSUDDIN-Petitioner Versus Mst. NAZIRAN AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ---Arts. 185(3) & 199 read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 13-A and Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30-Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent-Relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and original transferee of property established and petitioner becoming liable to pay rent to transferee on receipt of notice under S. 30 of Act-Notwithstanding failure of purchaser from such transferee to serve notice- under S. 13-A of Ordinance, matter having been finally decided by appellate Court, no valid reason existing for petitioner for withholding tender or deposit of rent-Held, in view of conduct of petitioner, no exception can be taken to High Court declining to extend discretionary relief to him-Offer to deposit all arrears of rent not made before High Court-Held, making of such offer before Supreme Court would not affect correctness of impugned order of High Court.
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Mansoor Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 10th August, 1983.
- ---Arts. 185(3) & 199 read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 13‑A and Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30‑Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent‑Relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and original transferee of property established and petitioner becoming liable to pay rent to transferee on receipt of notice under S. 30 of Act‑Notwithstanding failure of purchaser from such transferee to serve notice‑ under S. 13‑A of Ordinance, matter having been finally decided by appellate Court, no valid reason existing for petitioner for withholding tender or deposit of rent‑Held, in view of conduct of petitioner, no exception can be taken to High Court declining to extend discretionary relief to him‑Offer to deposit all arrears of rent not made before High Court‑Held, making of such offer before Supreme Court would not affect correctness of impugned order of High Court.
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Mansoor Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 21st February, 1983 of the Lahore High Court Passed in Writ Petition No. 748 of 1983).
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal by the High Court to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction, with the order of ejectment dated 10‑10‑1982 passed against him by the Rent Controller, Lahore, and upheld in appeal by the Additional District Judge, Lahore, on '2‑2‑1983.
2. The property in question had been transferred in favour of Haji Muhammad Yaqoob, from whom it had been purchased by Mst. Naziran, respondent No. 1, by a registered deed dated 19‑4‑1972. The petitioner had challenged the maintainability of the ejectment application instituted by her on 22‑12‑1973, on the ground of (1) absence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties (2) want of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and (3) want of notice under section 13‑A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The proceedings prolonged because of a number of remand orders and ultimately the Rent Controller on 10‑10‑1982 held that no notice under section 13‑A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance had been sent or served but that a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act had been served on the petitioner and as finding on the issues of relationship and damage to the property in favour of the landlord had already been affirmed by the appellate Court, he directed the ejectment of the petitioner. The High Court not only found no legal infirmity in the aforesaid order passed: by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority but also in view of the conduct of the petitioner in not having tendered or deposited rent in spite of a finding on the issue of relationship, held that he had forfeited his right of tenancy and as such it declined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction.
3. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the original transferee of the property had been established by the factum of the transfer and the petitioner had become liable to pay rent to the transfree on receipt of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. If Mst. Naziran, purchaser from the transferee, had not served notice under section 13‑A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, the petitioner had some excuse on the question of default but after the matter was finally decided by the appellate authority, there was no valid reason for withholding the tender or deposit of the rent. In view of this conduct on the part of the petitioner, no exception can be taken to the High Court declining to extend discretionary relief in his favour.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner now offers to deposit all the arrears. This he should have done before the High Court. His offer to deposit the arrears of rent now will not affect the correctness of the order of the High Court, Which he is seeking to assail before us. The petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.