Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MANU MIAH VS Respondent: MD. ISHAQUE MIAH
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Hamoodur Rahman, Mujibur Rahman Khan Title: MANU MIAH vs MD. ISHAQUE MIAH Case No.: Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 4-D of 1970 Date of Judgment:1970-06-15 Reported As: 1970 SCMR 879 Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT M. R. KHAN, J.-The petitioner was a monthly tenant under the respondent in respect of certain premises under the Double --moorings Police Station in the district of Chittagong. The premises was governed by the Transfer of the Property Act and the Premises Rent Control Ordinance. The tenancy was determined by a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulter. After the determination of the tenancy by notice, the respondent brought a suit for ejectment of the petitioner. The points that arose for consideration in the suit were whether the tenancy was duly determined by notice and whether the petitioner was defaulter. The trial Court found the petitioner to be a defaulter, but held that no notice to quit was duly served on the petitioner. Accordingly, the trial Court granted a decree for arrear of rent, but refused the prayer for ejectment. On appeal, the first appellate Court held that the petitioner was a defaulter and that the tenancy was duly determined by a valid notice. Accordingly, a decree for ejectment was passed by that Court. On second appeal by the petitioner, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan agreed with the findings of the first appellate Court and, accordingly, affirmed the decree for ejectment. The petition for special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court. The points agitated in the High Court have been raised in the petition. It appears that the notice for determination of the tenancy was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due and that it was duly served by the postal-peon. The evidence of the postal-peon in this regard was accepted by the High Court and the first appellate Court. All the- Courts below have found the petitioner to be a defaulter. Thus, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.