Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABID HUSSAIN VS Respondent: HAJRA BEGUM
1988 S C M R 690
1988 S C M R 690
Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A.Nusrat and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
ABID HUSSAIN and another‑‑Petitioners
versus
Mst. HAJRA BEGUM‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.183‑K of 1987, decided on 17th January, 1988.
(From the judgment of the High Court of Sind, Sukkur Bench, dated 5‑3‑1987, passed in F.R.A.No.53 of 1985).
Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑
‑‑S.16(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)‑‑Ejectment‑ Failure to deposit rent‑‑Striking off tenant's defence‑‑Plea raised that default was not wilful and deposit could not be made due to illness‑‑Evidence produced by tenant being contradictory and unreli able, order of ejectment upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Hassan Akbar, Advocate Supreme Court and M.I.Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 17th January, 1988.
ORDER
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court, Sukkur Bench at Sukkur, dated 5‑3‑1987, whereby the finding of the Rent Controller for striking off the defence of the petitioner was upheld.
2. The facts of the case need not to be given. Suffice it to say that the petitioner/ tenant had failed to comply with the order of the Rent Controller, dated 14‑1‑1985, directing him, that is, the tenant, to deposit the monthly rent of the property in dispute at the rate of Rs.200 per month. This led the landlord to move an application for striking off the defence of the petitioner. This application was resisted by the tenant and his case was that he was not a wilful defaulter, he could not deposit of rent on the date due because of his illness. The Rent Controller considered the case of the parties and ultimately held, vide his order dated 1st June, 1985, that the petitioner violated the order of deposit of rent, thus struck off his defence and passed ejectment order against him. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed through the impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the judgments of the Courts below. While dealing with the case of default committed by the petitioner, the High Court observed:
"The case of the appellant was that he was ill and he wanted to examine the doctor who had given the medical certificate before the Rent Controller but this request was rejected on the ground that the doctor had certified that appellant No.1 was ill from 10‑3‑1985 to 12‑3‑1985 and was unable to move whereas the appellant No.1 had himself filed affidavit before the Rent Controller that he approached the Nazir of the Court on 12‑3‑1985 for depositing rent. The learned Rent Controller has also pointed out that on the one hand the doctor certified that appellant No.1 was unable to move whereas the appellant No.1 has stated in his affidavit that he had appeared in Court on 12‑3‑1985. Apart from this, the learned Rent Controller had taken note of the fact that appellant No.1 had become ill due to shock of the death of his relation whereas the doctor had certified that appellant No.1 was suffering from attack of appendicitis. In the circumstances the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the delay, in the deposit of the rent required to be deposited by the Rent order, had not been explained."
As per above, we find that the learned Courts below have rightly ordered the ejectment of the petitioner because no reliance could be placed on the contradictory evidence produced by the petitioner.
4. Thus, finding no force in this petition, the same is dismissed.
M. I. /A‑168/5 Petition dismissed.