Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Others VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD JALIL UR REHMAN
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafi-ur-Rehman Title: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB And Others vs MUHAMMAD JALIL UR REHMAN Case No.:Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 118 of 1980 Writ Petition No.
6264 of 1979 Date of Judgment:1986-07-26 Reported As: 1986 SCMR 1705 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 14-10-1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition, was dismissed. It had arisen out of strikingof the defence of the petitioner-tenant vis-a-vis an educational institution functioning in a rented premises, on account of non-deposit of rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance. 1959. Learned counsel has raised two contentions: One, that the ejectment application should have been filed against the Collector, failure to implead him has resulted in miscarriage of justice; and secondly, that although default in deposit of rent under section 13(6) on time is not denied, the Rent Controller should have extended the time for deposit as the departmental representative got delayed in making the deposit on account of departmental procedures. None of these arguments was raised before the High Court. They, therefore, cannot be entertained at this stage. However, they are also without any substance. The Province of Punjab was impleaded through the Education Officer. Not only this, the learned counsel has failed to show that the Collector was also a necessary party nor he is able to show that failure to implead the Collector has in any way resulted in miscarriage of justice. The explanation for non-deposit of rent on time it is untenable. As held by this Court repeatedly, unless the reason for non-deposit shows objective unavoidability, the Rent Controller had no power to ignore the delay in making the deposit under section 13(6). Looked at from whatever angle, this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.