| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLD 1705 = 1991 CLC 1418 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.5719 of 1990, heard on 27th March, 1991.
Presented By: Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
Shaukat Ali Mehr for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Writ Petition No.5719 of 1990, heard on 27th March, 1991.
Presented By: Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
Shaukat Ali Mehr for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
Mst. IQBAL BEGUM---Petitioner
VERSUS
DISTRICT JUDGE, KASUR and others---Respondents
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.
Section: 13 (G)
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S.13 (G)---Order striking off defence of tenant for non-compliance of tentative rent order was set aside by Appellate Court on ground that there was no order on record directing tenant to deposit rent due---Certified copy of order passed by Rent Controller clearly showed that tenant was directed to deposit monthly rent on or before 15th day of next month---Order of Appellate Court, setting aside order for striking off defence passed by Rent Controller based upon misreading of record could not be sustained---Order of Appellate Court was set aside and that of Rent Controller was restored by High Court in circumstances. Shaukat Ali Mehr for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th March, 1991. JUDGMENT On 8th February, 1989 Mst. Iqbal Begum petitioner herein filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against respondent No.2 seeking his eviction from a shop situate in Gandam Mandi, Kasur on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal need. The application was resisted by respondent No.2 by filing a written statement on 27th June, 1989. The Rent Controller directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the future rent before the 15th day of that month. Subsequently however on 18th February, 1990 this order was modified to read that the monthly rent should be deposited by the 15th day of next month. 2. On 27th of November, 1989 and 18th February, 1990 the petitioner filed two applications complaining that the monthly rent had not been deposited by respondent No.2 in accordance with the order for, deposit of rent. The Rent Controller found force in these applications and struck off the defence of respondent No.2 on 14th April, 1990. 5. Ag grieved by this order, respondent No.2 filed an, appeal which' was accepted by the District Judge on the ground that there was no order directing the deposit of rent on the record. This Constitutional…