1989SCMR592 (PLP)
FARMAN AKHTAR‑‑Appellant Versus Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIf‑‑Rcspondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR592 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Gludam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | FARMAN AKHTAR‑‑Appellant Versus Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIf‑‑Rcspondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR592 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR592 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Gludam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR592 (PLP) (FARMAN AKHTAR‑‑Appellant Versus Haji MUHAMMAD SHARIf‑‑Rcspondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
- Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th October, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26‑1‑1979 in SA.O. No.416/79). (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.] 85(3)‑‑Eviction of tenant on ground of default in payment of rent‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the amount of security deposit lying with landlord, could be adjusted against the rent for the default period. Mst. Zubaida Begum v. Mirza Mumtaz Hassan P L D 1975 Lah. 1504 and West Pakistan Co‑operative Consumer Society, Lahore v. Messrs Mian Muhammad Farooq P L D 1978 Lah. 28 ref. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Adjustment of security deposit against rent for the default period‑‑Even if security deposit could be adjusted towards rent due, the same was not enough to cover the entire default‑ Rent deed showed that such security could not be adjusted against the rent due‑ No conflict of law existed on adjustment of security, same having been resolved by judgment of the Supreme Court in Zarina Khawaja's case reported in P L D 1988 S C
190. Zarina Khawaja v. Mahboob Shah P L D 1988 S C 190 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Zarina Khawaja v. Mahboob Shah P L D 1988 S C 190 rel. Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th October, 1988. MU14AMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against judgment dated the 26th January, 1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby appellant's second appeal arising out of the order of his eviction from the suit premises on ground of default in payment of rent, was dismissed. The point noted for examination in the leave grant order was whether the security deposit of Rs.1,000 lying with the landlord (respondent) could, in the circumstances of this case, be adjusted against the rent for the default period. The two reported cases, namely, Mst. Zubaida Begurn v. Mirza Mumtaz Hassan (P L D 1975 Lah. 1504) and West Pakistan Cooperative Consumer Society, Lahore v. Messrs Mian Muhammad Farooq (P L D 1978 Lah. 28) were cited in the leave grant order, which according to the submission then made by the learned counsel for the appellant, indicated some conflict of opinion. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in support of this plea and have also taken note of the circumstances in which the question regarding adjustment of security deposit had arisen. Firstly, even if it be assumed that the security deposit could be adjusted towards the rent due, the said amount was not enough so as to cover the entire default. There would still be substantial default in payment of rent which would remain unexplained. Secondly, on the examination of the rent deed, it has been found that the security could not have been adjusted against the rent due in this case. On the point of so‑called conflict of law also, the learned counsel has stated that the same has since been removed by the judgment of this Court in Zarina Khawaja v. Mahboob Shah (P L D 1988 S C 190). We find no force in this appeal and the same accordingly is dismissed with no orders as to costs. Learned counsel for the appellant requested that four months time may be allowed to him to vacate the premises. The learned counsel for the respondent has agreed to this request on the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the vacant possession of the premises shall be handed over to the respondent‑landlord by the appellant without latter's resort to the proceedings for execution, prior to the expiry of four months' period. We order accordingly. AA./F‑88/S Appeal dismissed.