Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAMI ULLAH, MANAGING PARTNER, MESSRS SHIFA MEDICO (REGD.) VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD ASHIQ KHAN ABDALI
1988 S C M R 1399
1988 S C M R 1399
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Ch. SAMI ULLAH, MANAGING PARTNER, Messrs SHIFA MEDICO (Regd.) Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD ASHIQ KHAN ABDALI‑ Respondent
Civil Petition No.737 of 1985. decided on 28th May, 1988.
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3‑6‑1985 in W.P No.3114 of 1984).
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑
‑‑S.13(8)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185‑‑Tenant already ejected physically‑‑ Leave to appeal‑‑Contention that Rent Controller should not have passed any order of payment of rent under S.13(8) without hearing the tenant and at any rate said order passed by Rent Controller was erroneous in so far as the proper calculation of the amounts due, was concerned‑‑Such contention was not raised before the High Court in the manner it was advanced before Supreme Court‑‑Supreme Court declined to entertain such question at leave granting stage, with observations that it was a question of fact and if this very argument would have been raised before the High Court, in the manner, advanced before Supreme Court, the position might have been different.
Sheikh Zia Ullah, Advocate Supreme and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 29th May, 19'68.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant in ejectment matter against the dismissal of petitioner's writ petition.
Learned counsel states that the petitioner having been physically evicted he does not any more challenge the order of eviction. He wants, however, to raise only the point with regard to final determination of rent payable to the landlord and order passed in that behalf under subsection (8) read with subsection (6) of section 13 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. According to him, the Rent Controller was required by law to pass an order under subsection (8) after hearing the petitioner as a normal adjudication independently of the order of eviction.
This was not the point raised by the learned counsel before the High Court. The argument then raised and noted in para. 14 of the judgment of the High Court is that "the impugned order of ejectment would be rendered illegal by not passing a final order regarding adjustment of rent paid by the petitioner " The learned judge in the High Court observed that "omission to pass an order in terms of subsection (8) of section 13 does not adversely affect the validity of the impugned order." This approach to the point raised by the learned counsel in the High Court has not been objected to. What is sought to be argued is that the Rent Controller should not have passed any order of payment of rent under subsection (8) of section 13 without hearing the petitioner and at any rate the said order passed by the learned Rent Controller is erroneous to so far as the proper calculation of the amounts due, is concerned.
If this very argument would have been raised before the High Court in the manner now advanced before us, the position might have been different. It being a question of fact and requiring further inquiry, we decline to entertain it at this stage. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused and the petition is dismissed.
M.B.A. /S‑157/8 Petition dismissed