Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 1618 1994 SLD 1618 = 1994 PLD 457

First Rent Appeal No.507 of 1992, decided on 31st May, 1994.
Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, J

Agha ABDUL MAJEED---Appellant

VERSUS

INAM WARIS---Respondent

Law:

Section:

This is tenant's appeal against striking off defence and passing of order of ejectment.   Admittedly appellant Agha Abdul Majeed is in possession of the premises in litigation bearing No.368, Block-9, Dastagir Society, Karachi, as tenant. Said property was owned by Abdul Rahim Pasha, who gifted out the same on 21-12-1989 to respondent Inam Waris.   Rent Application No.153 of 1991 was filed by Inam Waris for eviction of the appellant from the premises in litigation, on the ground that the appellant had defaulted in payment of rent from January, 1990 and that the same was required by the respondent for his bona fide personal use.   The rent case was contested by the appellant, who filed written statement challenging the gift, and taking plea about - having spent some amount on repairs for which the appellant claimed to be reimbursed.   By an order dated 7-4-1992 passed under section 16(1) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (hereafter mentioned as the Ordinance) the Rent Controller directed the appellant to deposit rent for January 1990 and onwards till March 1992 at the rate of Rs.250 P.M. amounting to Rs.6,750 by 14-5-1992 and to deposit future monthly rent for each month, by 10th of the next following month.   In compliance with such order, the appellant deposited the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.6,750 in a different case. Consequently on an application moved by the respondent, the Rent Controller passed the impugned order dated 29-9-1992 by which he struck off defence of the appellant and ordered his ejectment within 30 days. Hence this appeal.   Ms. Syeda Raffat Bano, learned counsel for the appellant argued that there was no contumacious or intentional default in complying with the rent deposit order, but there was a technical default inasmuch as the arrears of rent ordered to be deposited in Court, were deposited in Court but in a Miscellaneous Rent Case, where the appellant had already been depositing the rent. This, according to learned counsel for the appellant, did not amount to failure to deposit the arrears of rent or the monthly rent in terms of section 16(2) of the Ordinance. Learned counsel for the appellant…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register