1990 PLP 975 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD FAZAL‑‑Petitioner Versus TARIO JAVED and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 975 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAZAL‑‑Petitioner Versus TARIO JAVED and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑.‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 975 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑.‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 975 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Abdul Shakurul Salam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 975 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD FAZAL‑‑Petitioner Versus TARIO JAVED and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hakim Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 16‑9‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. 904 of 1988). ‑‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Ejectment application‑‑‑. Tenant who was in jail was impleaded through his minor son, whose mother was shown to be his next friend‑‑‑Rent Controller, subsequently struck off tenant's defence for non‑compliance of his tentative rent order and he was ordered to be evicted from premises ‑‑‑Ejectment order was upheld upto the High Court‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention, that the case of tenant who was in jail merited more consideration than it had been bestowed; that tenant being in jail and undeniably not served there with a notice in the ejectment proceedings same could not culminate in his order of ejectment; and that ejectment application itself filed against him was through his minor son and latter's mother shown as a next friend was not competent when tenant was very much alive and could be sued and served in jail where misfortune had taken him.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1990. ABDUL SHAKURUL, SALAM, J.‑‑Respondents 1 and 2 filed an ejectment application against the petitioner on the ground of re‑construction and default in payment of rent.
2. The petitioner was confined in jail and he was impleaded through his minor son Jamshed Iqbal whose mother Mst. Khurshid was shown as his next friend. She filed a written reply contesting the application and saying that the tent. at the rate of Rs.100 was being deposited in Court. The learned Rent Controller passed an order on 12‑10‑1987, under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent, amounting to Rs.9,500 and Rs.500 per month. For non‑compliance of the order, defence of the petitioner was struck ‑off and he was ordered to be ejected vide order dated 7‑3‑1988. Having failed in appeal, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 904 of 1989. It was urged on his .behalf that the rate of monthly rent was Rs.100 which was being regularly deposited with the Rent Controller since before the ejectment application was filed, and so there was no question of arrears nor justification for a direction for deposit of rent at the rate of Rs.500 per month; consequently, the defence of the petitioner could not be struck off for non compliance with such an order. It was also contended that the petitioner who was detained in jail was not served with any notice and had been condemned unheard by the. learned Rent Controller. The contention did not find favour with the learned single Judge who dismissed the petition vide order dated 16‑9‑1989. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case of the petitioner who was in jail merited more consideration than‑ it has been bestowed. It is submitted that the petitioner being in jail and undeniably not served there with a notice in the ejectment application, the proceedings could not culminate in his order of ejectment. The ejectment application itself though filed against him was through his minor son and the latter's mother shown as a next friend was not competent when the petitioner was very much alive on this earth and could be sued and served in jail where misfortune had taken him.
4. Contentions raised require consideration.
5. Security in the sum of Rs.5,
000. Rent at the same rate as was being earlier deposited before the Rent Controller shall be deposited regularly. A.A./M‑1249/S Leave granted.