Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FAZAL DIN VS Respondent: Haji KHALID MAHMOOD
1988 M L D 1383
1988 M L D 1383
[Karachi]
Before Abdul Razak A. Thahim, J
FAZAL DIN and another‑‑Appellants
versus
Haji KHALID MAHMOOD‑‑Respondent
First Rent Appeal No.469 of 1985 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1816 of 1987, decided on 26th October, 1987.
Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑---
--‑‑Ss.15 & 21‑‑Fjectment‑‑Default in payment of rent‑‑Tenant neither deposited arrears of rent nor future monthly rent in terms of order passed by High Court‑ Appeal heard on merits as well as on ground of default‑‑Court wanted to give another opportunity to counsel of tenant to deposit arrears but he showed his inability on the ground that tenant had been transferred from Karachi‑‑Future rent also not paid by tenant and on merits he had no case‑‑Order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller upheld in circumstances.
Attaullah Khan for Appellants.
Date of hearing: 26th October, 1987.
ORDER
This First Rent Appeal was admitted on 15‑8‑1985. The rent case was filed on the ground of default in the year 1984. The Rent Controller' decided the rent case in favour of the respondent by way of ex parte proceedings on 12‑1‑1985. This Court an order dated 23rd August, 1987 on the application of the respondent directed the appellant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs.70 per month w.e.f. July, 1983 till July, 1987 amounting to Rs3,430 within period of three months. Appellant was further directed to deposit future monthly rent at the rate of Rs.70 per month by 10th of each month starting from August, 1987.
It is contended by Mr.Sohail Rana that appellant has neither paid the arrears nor deposited the future rent in terms of the order passed by this Court. This has not been denied by Mr. Ataullah Khan.
I have heard this appeal on merits as well as on the second ground of default. I wanted to give time to Mr.Ataullah to deposit arrears as per terms ref the order of this Court but he has shown inability on the ground that appellants have been transferred from Karachi. It is an admitted position that future rent has not been deposited by the appellants and they have no case on merits as‑well. The React Controller ha rightly passed an ex parte order though appellants were served. In these circumstances this appeal is disused with no order as to costs.
M.Y.H./F‑56/K Appeal dismissed