| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLD 1566 = 1991 CLC 654 |
Sindh High Court
First Rent Appeals Nos.38 and 39 of 1986, decided on 15th November, 1990.
Presented By: Before Allah Dino G. Memon, J
Mubarak Ahmed for Appellant. S. Ali Ahmed Tariq for
Respondent.
First Rent Appeals Nos.38 and 39 of 1986, decided on 15th November, 1990.
Presented By: Before Allah Dino G. Memon, J
Mubarak Ahmed for Appellant. S. Ali Ahmed Tariq for
Respondent.
Mst. A.B. AISHA --- Appellant
VERSUS
SULTAN AHMED TAHIR --- Respondent
Law: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963
Section: 24
Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)-- ---- S. 24 [as amended by S.8 of Cantonments Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (IX of 19851 --- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5 --- Appeal --- Time limit - -- Time limit for riling appeal when ejectment application of landlord was dismissed by Rent Controller, was fifteen days, but appeal was filed four days after expiry of prescribed period of fifteen days --- Subsequent amendment in S.24, providing period of thirty days for filing appeal not having retrospective effect, appeal was time-barred and S.5, Limitation Act, 1908, not being applicable to proceedings under Cantonments, Rent Restriction Act, 1963, appeal was liable to be dismissed being time-barred. Mubarak Ahmed for Appellant. S. Ali Ahmed Tariq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1990. JUDGMENT I propose to decide the above -two F.R.A's by this Judgment as two ejectment matters were consolidated, and identical questions of fact and law are involved. Moreover, the matters are between the same parties and were decided by a single order. The brief, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant filed ejectment application under Section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963, seeking ejectment of respondent Sultan Ahmed Tahir on the ground of default in respect of two shops situated on Plot No.25-C/A Commercial Area Defence Housing Authority (Clifton Cantonment) Karachi. The opponent was served with notice and he riled the written statement inter alia stating therein that the application was not maintainable and was barred under the principle of res judicata, the same was premature, and the applicant has no cause of action. That the applications were mala fide and were not maintainable. The allegations regarding default were denied. It was further stated in Rent Case No.19 of 1980 that the son of the opponent who also looks after the affairs of his father as per established practice issued a cheque for Rs.2,400 on 13-4-1978 drawn on United Bank Limited, Commercial Area, Defence Housing Authority (Clifton Cantonment) Karachi, covering the period from 1-2-1978 upto 30-4-1978. The above cheque was…