2001 PLP 1822 (MLD)

Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst. Mumtaz PLD 1982 SC 88 ref. Jamil-ur-Rehman for Appellant. Anwar Hussain for Respondent No.

1. This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. Reasons given in the application are that the appellant fell ill and was advised medically to take complete bed rest. The judgment passed in the Rent Case No. 662 of 1992 is dated 22-10-1997; wherein the application 'for certified copy was filed on 6-2-1998 and was made ready on 21-2-1998. The period for filing an appeal is 30- days from the date of judgment/order passed by the learned Rent Controller as such the application itself for certified copy was filed beyond the limitation. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that time appellant was ill and was advised to take rest and he relied on the two affidavits Annexure A.5 and A.6 which are attached to the memo., of appeal. These certificates have been issued by some Dr. Kalim Ahmed Qureshi but neither his address is given on the letter head nor his registration number. Secondly, the period for bed rest prescribed in the said certificate is from 7-8-1997 to 22-10-1997 as such the certificate itself does not cover the period after the judgment was announced and apart from the said ground and certificate no other grounds have been given in the application. There are several judgments of this Court as well as of the superior Court that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to rent cases. Reliance can be placed on the case of Abdul Ghaffar and others v. Mst. Mumtaz (PLD 1982 SC 88), wherein it was held:-- "The second contention is also without any force. Subsection (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act relates to special and local laws. The Sindh Ordinance, it has been admitted, is such a law. We have already held that the period of limitation for filing the appeal under this law (thirty days) is different from the period prescribed by Article 156 of the Limitation Act; therefore, as provided in section 29(2), the provisions of section 3 thereof would apply to such a situation but subject to the exclusions contained in section 29 itself. When section 3 of the Limitation Act is applied, the provisions of sections 4 to 25 of that Act would get (normally) attracted by virtue of section

3. But if it is a case covered by section 29, the provisions of sections 4 to 25 would apply only to the extent that any of them have not been excluded by the combined reading of clauses (a) and (b) of section 29(2) And, it is not denied that the said two clauses when read together in the context of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 do exclude section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has rightly refused to apply the same in this case." In view of the facts and law this application having no merits is dismissed. 2 &

3. Since appeal was filed beyond limitation the same is dismissed alongwith the pending application. However, it is reported that the appellant is running a Pan Shop in the disputed premises. The judgment in this case was passed on 22-10-1997 and stay order was passed on 13-4-1998 as such the appellant has already gained considerable time during the pendency of this appeal. However, two months time from the date of this order is granted to the appellant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent/landlord. However this will be subject to the deposit of rent. H.B.T./S-109/K Appeal dismissed.