MLD 1989

1989 PLP 3579 (MLD)

Mst. NOOR JEHAN — Appellant Versus IQBAL AHMAD KHAN — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
First Rent Appeal No. 471 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 904 of 1988, decided on 30th November, 1988.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Mazhar Ali, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 3579 (MLD)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Muhammad Mazhar Ali, J
Parties Mst. NOOR JEHAN — Appellant Versus IQBAL AHMAD KHAN — Respondent
Primary Law Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3579 (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 1989 PLP 3579 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Mazhar Ali, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3579 (MLD) (Mst. NOOR JEHAN — Appellant Versus IQBAL AHMAD KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)

Representation

  • S. Arif Ali Shah for Appellant. '
  • A. Majeed Khan for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 16--Striking off defence--Rent Controller struck off defence of tenant on his failure to deposit arrear of rent and monthly rent--Tenant disputed rate of rent and period of non-payment and obtained from Rent Controller an ad interim stay order against order of deposit of arrears of rent which had been challenged in appeal by landlord--Order of Rent Controller was based on appreciation of material which was then available on record in the form of affidavits--Ad interim order of stay was confirmed by High Court subject to deposit of rent as per tentative rent order of Rent Controller till decision of appeal. PLD 1985 Kar. 741; 1986 CLC 1613; 1987 MLD 877 and PLD 1985 Kar. 741 ref. '

Judgment & Decree

"Mr. Arif Hussain Shah, Advocate. (1) The learned counsel contends that the order for deposit of arrears of rent is not legal as the determination of arrears of rent has been left to the appellant by adjusting the amount deposited in Miscellaneous rent case. Admit. Notice. (2) The impugned order is stayed. Notice Sd/- Judge." No counter-affidavit has been filed to the affidavit filed in support of the stay application under consideration. In the affidavit filed in support of this application the factual aspects of the case with regard to the rate of rent and the period of default are not disclosed. At any rate, the learned Rent Controller has struck off the defence of the appellant by an order passed under section 16(2) of the Ordinance with the remarks; `the opponent had neither deposited complete arrears of rent nor deposited the future rent' as per tentative order dated 24-1 1988 passed by him on application under section 16 (1) of the Ordinance. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount of rent has not been deposited pursuant to the above order passed by the learned Rent Controller'. He, however, submitted that the learned Rent Controller's order was contrary to the legal provisions and that it was passed without making summary inquiry as is contemplated under law and/or even after taking into consideration the legal objections raised by the appellant against the maintainability of the ejectment application itself, as held by this Court in the case reported in PLD 1985 Kar.

741. The learned counsel for the appellant also cited several other authorities before me to contend that the non-compliance of the tentative order under the facts of this case, had not rendered the defence of the appellant being struck off under section 16(2)of the Ordinance. Lastly, he submitted that since the appeal has been admitted to regular hearing, and an ad interim order of stay has already been granted, it would cause irreparable loss to the appellant if it is not confirmed. Mr. A. Majeed Khan, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, vehemently opposed the confirmation of the ad interim order of stay by placing reliance on the two decisions of this Court reported in 1986 CLC 1613 and 1987 MLD 877, wherein a view contrary to the view expressed in PLD 1985 Kar. 741, has been, after due consideration of the said authority, taken. The latter two decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent have been passed by the two other learned Judges of this Court. After going through the above three authorities cited at the Bar, I also tentatively held the same view as has been enunciated in the latter above two reported decisions. Be that as it may, it is evidently clear from the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 24-1-1988 passed under Section 16(1) of the Ordinance that it yeas based upon appreciation of the material which was then available on record in the form of affidavits of parties as well as the affidavits of five other persons filed on behalf of the respondent. Moreover, in the concluding part of the said order he also directed that the rate of rent and the period for non-payment of rent is in dispute. He, therefore, directed the applicant not to withdraw rent from October, 1986 upto 1987. The applicant was, however, allowed to withdraw the rent at the rate, of Rs. 900 p.m. from November, 1987 onwards. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case I would confirm the ad interim order of stay, subject, however, to the deposit of rent as per tentative order of the learned. Rent Controller dated 24-1-1988 for the entire period ending on 30-i1-1988 within three months minus the sum of Rs. 5,400 deposited in the Court of Rent Controller in Misc. Rent Case No. 1149/87. The future monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 1,650 with effect from 1-12-1988 shall also be paid by the 10th of every subsequent month till the disposal of the appeal. The rent for the month of December, 1988 at the rate of Rs. 1,650 shall be paid by' 10th of January, 1.989. M.Y.H./N-188/K Ad interim order confirmed.