Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. VS Respondent: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT
1988 S C M R 1231
1988 S C M R 1231
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.‑‑Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRAT and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.290 of 1988, decided on 4th April, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28‑2‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.5016 of 1984).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Ejectment‑ Failure to pay agreed enhanced rent‑‑Consequence of‑‑Ejectment on ground of default, challenged‑‑Earlier ejectment proceedings between parties compromised and petitioner required to pay enhanced rent at the rate of per square foot, which was being paid by another Bank‑ Plea raised that respondent landlady was legally bound to get measurements made and get rent determined even if it was at the rate which was being paid by the other Bank; and that failure of respondent furnished a legal ground to petitioner to pay rent at the rate which was prior to agreement‑‑Held, since difference between old and enhanced rent was determined in ejectment proceedings, it was duty of petitioner to ascertain from the other Bank rent which they were paying for their premises and having done that they should have paid the rent at that rate, as agreed between the parties, promptly‑‑Case being that of clear default, order of ejectment affirmed‑‑No justification for interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch.M.Z. Khalil, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th April, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 28‑2‑1988 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner/ tenant's Constitutional Petition arising out .of an order of its eviction under the Urban Rent Restriction law, was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel has contended that the petitioner was wrongly adjudged as a rent. defaulter. When told that it being a finding of fact, the High Court has rightly declined to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction, the learned counsel argued that even according to lain, in the circumstances of this case, it would not have been held that the petitioner "failed" to pay the rent "due" from it.
3. There was previous litigation between the parties for the eviction of the petitioner, which ended in a compromise; as a result of which the petitioner was required to pay enhanced rent at the rate of per square foot, which was being paid by United Bank Ltd. Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din. According to the learned counsel the respondent /landlady was legally bound to get the measurements made and get the rent determined even if it was at the rate which was being paid by United Bank Ltd. This failure of the respondent /landlady furnished a legal ground to the petitioner to pay the rent only at the rate which was prior to the agreement.
4. The argument of the learned counsel has no force. The difference between old and enhanced rent as determined in the proceedings out of which this petition has arisen, is nearly of Rs.2,000 per mensem. We have seen the order passed in the previous litigation regarding payment of the enhanced rent. It was the duty of the petitioner to ascertain from the United Bank Ltd. the rent which they were paying for their premises. Having done that they should have paid the rent at that rate, as agreed between the parties, promptly and if there was any difficulty, it should have brought it to the notice of the landlady.
5. After hearing the learned counsel, it is a clear case of default in payment of rent. The petitioner/Bank has rightly been evicted. There is no justification for interference, this petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
M. I. /M‑440/S Petition dismissed.