Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 1931 2005 SLD 1931 2005 PLD 34
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1769 of 2004, decided on 6th October, 2004. (On appeal from the judgment dated 10-6-2004 in F.A.O. No. 70 of 2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi).
RANA BHAGWANDAS AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
Dr. Babar Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. M. Akram Shaikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent

Mst. FATIMA GUL

VS

Malik SAEED AKHTAR

Law:

Section:

(a) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)--- ----Ss.17 & 27---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Ejectment of tenant---Striking off defence---Tentative rent order, non-compliance of---Wilful default in deposit of rent---Holding of inquiry by Rent Controller---Reason for non-deposit of rent by tenant was that her son met with an accident in another city and the doctor had advised him rest till 19-1-2004 and the rent was deposited on 20-1-2004---Rent Controller being not satisfied with the reason for non-deposit passed eviction order which was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by the tenant was that the Rent Controller did not hold any inquiry before passing eviction order---Validity---High Court and Rent Controller had rightly concurred in holding that default in deposit of rent was neither unavoidable nor beyond the control of tenant---High Court was right in arriving at finding that the default in deposit of rent in Court was contumacious, due to negligence and not unavoidable and the case was not covered by dictum laid down by Supreme Court in case titled Ghulam Muhammad Khan Lundkhor v. Safdar Ali, reported as PLD 1967 SC 530---Rent Controller had passed order under S.17(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, and directed the tenant to make compliance with regard to `the deposit of rent and not to her son, therefore, it was the duty of the tenant to have either deposited herself or through any of her agents---In case the agent or son failed to deposit rent within the statutory period, then the tenant would be liable/responsible for the consequences---Both the Courts below had concurrently found that cause shown for non-deposit of monthly future rent could not be termed to be unavoidable or beyond the control of tenant---Summary inquiry was held by Rent Controller whereby tenant was called upon to explain the commission of default under the provisions of S.17(9) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, and also heard the tenant which was sufficient compliance of S.27 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963---Detailed inquiry was not required to be held under the provisions of S.27 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492