Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL SAMAD VS Respondent: GHULAM RASOOL
1988 S C M R 1868
1988 S C M R 1868
Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A.Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
Haji Syed ABDUL SAMAD‑‑Petitioner versus
Mir GHULAM RASOOL and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.26‑Q of 1987, decided on 22nd May, 1988.
(From the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dated 2‑4‑1987 passed in F.A.0. No.78 of 1986).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.13(6) & 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑ Ejectment‑‑Default in payment of rent‑‑Striking off defence of petitioner‑ ‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑Petitioner depositing arrears of rent only as no mention was made in the order of Rent Controller with regard to payment of future rent‑‑Application for striking off petitioner's defence dismissed by Rent Controller but was allowed by High Court‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that there being no direction in the order of Rent Controller with regard to deposit of future monthly rent, question of any default for not depositing rent for succeeding months did not arise in facts and circumstances of case; and that in view of amendment introduced in S.13 of Ordinance (VI of 1959) on 1‑10‑1984, application of respondents itself was liable to be dismissed as petitioner had, before filing of written statement, deposited claimed arrears of rent‑‑Point involved being short, appeal ordered to be heard expeditiously.
Yahya Bakhtiar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S.A.M Quadri, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
M.Aslam Chishti, Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1988.
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑On respondents' application, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent, a tentative order was passed by the Rent Controller dated 8‑7‑1986, which appears at page 38 of the petition. According to the said order, the petitioner was directed to deposit rent for the disputed shop premises from July 1985 to 30th June, 1986 at the rate of Rs.150 per month before the next date of hearing. No mention, however, was made with regard to future payment of rent. The respondents made an application under section 13(6) of Baluchistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on 30‑8‑1986, for striking off the defence of the petitioner on the ground of non‑compliance of order dated 8‑7‑1986. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller by his order dated 4‑11‑1986. The order of the Rent Controller was challenged by the respondents in the High Court in FAO, which was allowed as per impugned judgment.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner' that there being no direction in the order of the Rent Controller dated 8‑7‑1986 with regard to deposit of future monthly rent, the question of any default for not depositing the rent for the month July 1986 did not arise in the facts and circumstances of this case. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the amendment introduced in section 13 of the Rent Ordinance` VI of 1959 on 1‑10‑1984, the application of the respondents itself was liable to be dismissed as the petitioner had, before the filing of the written statement, deposited the claimed arrears of rent.
3. The contentions raised above require examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,000. The appeal will be heard on the same record with liberty to the parties to file documents, if any, before the next date of hearing.
As the point involved is short, the appeal shall be made ready and fixed for hearing on 29‑5‑1988.
M.I./A‑292/S Leave granted.