Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SYED NUR RIAHI GARDEZI VS Respondent: MIAN NASIM MUSLIM
1988 S C M R 1647
1988 S C M R 1647
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
Syed NUR RIAHI GARDEZI and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
Mian NASIM MUSLIM and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.196 of 1987, decided on 28th May, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 13‑12‑1986 in W.P. No.554 of 1985).
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑S.13(6)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Ejectment‑ Default in deposit of rent due to vacations in Courts‑‑Whether avoidable or not‑‑Question of fact‑‑Tenant ordered to deposit rent before 15th of every‑ succeeding month deposited rent for July on 20th August‑ Tenant's defence struck off and ejectment ordered‑‑Tenant's assertion that since Courts were closed during August, he was entitled to deposit rent' on re‑opening of Courts on 1st September and there was no question of default, accepted in appeal and order of ejectment set aside‑‑Leave to appeal sought‑‑Question whether non‑deposit of rent for the month of July before 15th of August was avoidable or not being one of fact and District Judge and High Court having recorded a finding on the question against the landlord, Supreme Court declined to interfere with the view taken by them‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)
‑‑‑S.13(6)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Findings of fact‑‑Interference with‑‑Default in deposit of rent due to Courts vacations‑‑Consequence of‑‑Question whether non‑deposit of rent for July before 15th of August (during vacations of Courts) was avoidable or not, was a question of fact‑ Findings recorded by two Courts not interfered with‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Asif Saeed Khan Khossa, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 28th May, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 13‑12‑1986 'of the Lahore High Court whereby it declined to interfere with the order dated 8‑5‑1985 of the Additional District Judge, Multan setting aside the order of eviction passed against respondent No.1 by the Rent Controller.
2. The petitioners are the owners of the rented premises. Respondent No.1 is their tenant. The' petitioners filed an application for the eviction of respondent No.1 on the ground of default in the payment of rent. On 29‑6‑1984 the learned Rent Controller made an order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance calling upon respondent No.1 inter alia, to deposit the monthly rent before the 15th of every succeeding month. On 24‑9‑1984 the petitioners moved an application before the learned Rent Controller, alleging that respondent No.1 had made a default for the month of July, 1983 inasmuch as instead of depositing the rent for this month before 15‑8‑1983 he had done so on 20‑8‑1983. This application was resisted by respondent No.1 with the assertion that as the Courts were closed during the month of August, he was entitled to deposit the rent for July on the re‑opening of the Courts on 1‑9‑1983; however, he had taken the permission of the District Judge and deposited the rent on 20‑8‑1983; thus the question of default did not arise. The learned Rent Controller rejected this explanation; struck off the defence of respondent No.1 and directed him to vacate the premises within 4 months. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Multan. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the explanation of respondent No.1 and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. The petitioners then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the legality of the order of the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. The question whether non‑deposit of rent for the month of July before 15‑8‑1983 was avoidable or not was one of fact. The learned Additional District Judge and the High Court have recorded a finding on this question against the petitioners. We see no justification to interfere with the view taken by them. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a number of decisions of this Court on the question. On a close examination of these decisions it would appear that they all proceeded on the facts of their own. For this reason these are not helpful to the petitioners. The petition is dismissed.
M.I./N‑83/S Petition dismissed.