1990 PLP 557 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 557 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (v1 of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 557 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (v1 of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 557 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zillah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 557 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YOUSAF — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafari, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11-1-1988 in W.P. 14:1 of 1988).
S.13(6)
Constitution of Pakistan(1973), Art. 185(3)
Tenant's defence struck off for his failure to make deposit on specified date
Tenant's Constitutional petition against striking off his defence was also dismissed by High Court
Tenant's contention that because of delay of only one day in the deposit of rent, High Court should not have taken a strict view, repelled
Held, default under S.13(6) of the Ordinance was of a peculiar nature; Rent Controller had no discretion to condone it, as distinguished from the default in payment of rent relatable to other provisions of S.13 of the Ordinance VI of 1959
Findings of High Court with regard to compelling and/or unavoidable/beyond control circumstances being unexceptionable no reasons existed to differ with the same-- Leave refused. Gulzar Ahmad Pirzada v. Addl. District Judge, Lahore (1982 S C M R 616).
Judgment & Decree
Malik Saeed Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Asim Jafari, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th June, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant whose defence has been struck off under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. His writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court. Learned counsel while admitting that the deposit of rent for the month of March, 1986 was not in accordance with the direction of the learned Rent Controller made under section 13(6), contended that it was a delay only of one day. Therefore, the High Court should not have taken a strict view of the so called default that the petitioner was compelled by the circumstances (illness of his father) in his failure to make deposit on due date; and that, in any case, if it was not a case of several defaults spread over a period of time, the defence could not be struck off. In this behalf, he relied on Gulzar Ahmad Pirzada v. Addl. District Judge, Lahore (1982 S C M R 616). The default under section 13(6) is of a peculiar nature. As held by this Court the Rent Controller has no discretion to condone it as distinguishable from the default in payment of rent relatable to the other provision of section
13. Accordingly the first and the last contentions of the learned counsel have no force. The judgment relied upon by him does not help the petitioner, it rather goes against him. With regard to compelling and/or unavoidable/beyond Control circumstances, after hearing the learned counsel at some length on this point, we have no reason to differ with the assessment and Findings of fact impugned before this Court. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused. A.A./M-928/S Leave refused.