Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: IQBAL VS Respondent: SHAHID HUSSAINHonorable Justice Haider Ali PirzadaM.A. Lateef A . Shakoor,Badruduja Khan
1988 C L C 644
1988 C L C 644
[Karachi]
Before Haider Ali Pirzada, J
IQBAL and 11 others‑‑Appellants versus
SHAHID HUSSAIN‑‑Respondent
First Rent Appeal No. 1095 of 1986, decided on 21st June, 1987.
Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 16(1)(2)‑‑Non‑compliance of tentative rent order‑‑Striking off defence‑‑Tenants failing to deposit future monthly rent within time in accordance with tentative rent order, contended that such non‑compliance was due to illness of one of tenants‑‑Neither any serious nature of illness was disclosed in medical certificate produced in support of such illness nor delay in depositing rent after date of recovery from illness as mentioned in medical certificate was explained‑‑Effect‑‑Other male members among tenants who could deposit rent were admittedly present‑‑Defence held, was rightly struck off due to non‑compliance of tentative rent order in circumstances.
M.A. Lateef A . Shakoor for Appellant. Badruduja Khan for Respondent.
JUDGMENT
The learned Controller by order dated 27‑3‑1983 directed the appellants to deposit future monthly rent at the rate of Rs.35 per month on or before 10th of each calendar month. The respondent filed application under section 6(2) of the Ordinance praying that the appellant had not deposited rent for the months of January and February 1984, within time and their defence be struck off. Muhammad Qasim filed counter‑affidavit wherein he stated that in the first week of February, 1984 he was confined to bed and remained confined to bed upto 1st April, 1984. The appellants also produced Medical Certificate. The learned Controller by his order, dated 7‑10‑1986 allowed the application. The appellants also challenged this order in the instant appeal.
It is an admitted fact that the rent for the months of January and February 1984 was not deposited within time but deposited on 18‑3‑1984. It is an admitted position that Muhammad Qasim was under the treatment from 1st February to 10th March as per Medical Certificate. Firstly the counter‑affidavit of Muhammad Qasim is absolutely silent about the period from 11‑3‑1984 to 17‑3‑1984. There is no plausible explanation as to why the rent was not 'deposited between the period 11‑3‑1984 and 17‑3‑1984. Secondly the other appellants could also not deposal the rent within time, the fact was also not disclosed in the counter‑affidavit. Thirdly there must be some other male members who could deposit the rent. Fourthly he was under the treatment of Doctor from 1‑2‑1984 upto 10‑3‑1984 but the seriousness of illness was not disclosed in the certificate as well as counter‑affidavit do not show that he was not allowed to speak. I have perused the impugned order. I am of the view that there is no illegality in the order. The delay was not explained. I affirm the order of the learned Controller. In this view of the matter I do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed on this ground.
H.B.T./I‑27/K Appeal dismissed.