Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLD 1849 = 1991 CLC 1830
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.6564 of 1990, heard on 29th May, 1991.
Presented By: Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
Mian Nisar Ahmad for Petitioners. Raja Muhammad Yaqoob Khan for
Respondents Nos.l to 4. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 5 and 6.

Mian SHABBIR AHMAD and another---Petitioners

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD IOBAL and 5 others---Respondents

Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 13 , 15

  West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ---S. 13---Civil Procedure Code 0' of 1908), O,V, R.17 & O.IX, R.6-- Ejectment application---Ex parte proceedings---Ex parte ejectment ardor passed by Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal by Appellate Court ---Validity-- Record showed that Rent Controller, while deciding application for ejectment proceeded with unusual and unholy haste, rendering the proceedings mala fide and capricious ---Ejectment application having been filed on 21-9-1985, ex parte ejectment order was passed on 21-10-1985, allowing no time for vacation of premises---Tenants were ejected within three days of the passing of ex parte ejectment order---Rent Controller thus, acted with undue haste and in highly unjust manner which had vitiated the whole proceedings. Khuda Dad Khan v. Muhammad Abdul Hanan and 6 others 1980 C L C 500 ref. West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S. 13---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.6---Ex parte order of ejectment ---Validity---Ex parte order of ejectment passed on a date which was not fixed by the Rent Controller but by, the ministerial officer was not valid and same was not sustainable. Nowsher Khan v. Said Ahmad Shah 1983 S C M R 1092 rel. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.V, R.17 & O.IX, R.6---Ex parte order---Report of process-server on which Court relied while preceding ex parte was incomplete---Farts mentioned by process server in his evidence not finding place in his report----Service had purportedly been effected under provisions of O.V, R.17, Civil Procedure Code but neither the time when service was effected was mentioned by process-server nor place where affixation was made had been specified---Courts below when relying on the report of process-server or on his evidence had completely closed their eyes to the obvious inconsistency between his report and evidence---Ex parte order was thus, not justifiable in circumstances.     West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)--- ----S. 15[(as amended by Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (XIII of 1990)]---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---No…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register