Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 7 2026 SLD 7
Islamabad High Court
W.P.No.977/2018
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB
Date of Hearing:            02.04.2018                                                             Petitioner by:            Sardar Arshad Mahmood Khan, Advocate,
Respondent No.3 by: Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari, and Syed Qamar Hussain Sabzwari, Advocates.

M/s Panther Developers

VERSUS

          Additional District Judge (ADJ), West, Islamabad and others

Law: Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001

Section: 17(8),17(9)

JUDGMENT SHEET:

  MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner, M/s Panther Developers, impugns the judgment and decree dated 10.03.2018, passed by the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the order dated 18.12.2017, passed by the Court of the learned Rent Controller, Islamabad, was dismissed. Vide the said order dated 18.12.2017, the learned Rent Controller struck off the petitioner’s right of defence under section 17(9) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (“I.R.R.O.”), and accepted respondent No.3’s eviction petition. Furthermore, the petitioner was directed to forthwith handover vacant possession of the rented premises (i.e., Half Basement, 1-E, Ali Plaza, Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, Islamabad) to respondent No.3.

2.               The record shows that on 12.03.2014, a lease agreement was executed between the petitioner (tenant) and respondent No.3 (landlord), whereby the rented premises were leased for a period of five years (from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2019). On 24.04.2017, respondent No.3 filed an eviction petition against the petitioner under Section 17 of the I.R.R.O. The grounds taken in the said eviction petition were; (i) default in the payment of rent and (ii) violation of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement on the petitioner’s part. The petitioner contested the said eviction petition by filing a written reply. In the said reply, it was pleaded inter-alia that respondent No.3 had refused to accept the rent from the petitioner, and that the lease agreement was valid until 31.03.2019.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register