1985 PLP 1929 (SCMR)
AKBAR ALI — Petitioner Versus RAHMAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1929 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, M.S.H. Quraishi and |
| Parties | AKBAR ALI — Petitioner Versus RAHMAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1929 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1929 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, M.S.H. Quraishi and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1929 (SCMR) (AKBAR ALI — Petitioner Versus RAHMAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 4th March, 1985.
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, dated 10-4-1984 passed in First Rent Appeal No. 754 of 1980).
Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 15--Ejectment on ground of default--Challenged--Petitioner unable to controvert stand taken by tenants--Evidence of petitioners not convincing--Default not having been established, order of ejectment reversed in appeal--Allegations of default with almost identical facts against two tenants smelling as a made up story and conduct of tenant respondents found unblemished--Petitions being devoid of merits, dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑In both the above‑mentioned petitions, landlord /petitioner is the same and the period of default in C.P.L.A. No. 332/K is alleged to be from August, 1973 to 30‑9‑1975 and in C.P.L.A. No. 333/K it is w.e.f. 1‑8‑1973 to 30‑9‑1975 while the other facts are common in these two petitions. This order will, therefore, dispose of both the Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos. 332/K and 333/K of 1984.
2. The petitioner brought ejectment applications under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the respondents in the Court of the Rent Controller on the grounds of default and personal need. The learned Rent Controller allowed the applications and ordered ejectment of the respondents vide his order. dated 15‑9‑1980 on ground of default only for the period from 1‑8‑1973 to November, 1974. On appeal, the said order was reversed by the learned Judge of the Sind High Court vide. the impugned judgment, dated 10‑4‑1984 holding that no default has been established and the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the respondents. It was observed that the tenant/respondents have been paying the rent regularly from the inception of their tenancy and it is their contention that the alleged period of default is due to the fact that the landlord/ petitioner, on the pretext of non‑availability of printed receipt book, did not issue any receipt. The respondents/ tenant, therefore, sent money orders for two months and also applied for depositing the due rent in the Court of the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner could not controvert this stand and his evidence was also not convincing. We also find that against both the respondents, almost identical facts of default has been alleged which smells as a made‑up story of default in the payment of rent. The conduct of the tenant/ respondents has also been taken into consideration by the learned High Court Judge in the impugned order as 'unblemished'. Hence, we do not think that these petitions merit consideration and, we therefore, reject the same. Petitions for leave to Appeals Nos. K/332 and K/333 of 1984 are, therefore, dismissed. M.I. Leave refused.