Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLD 3056 = 1980 CLC 467
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal from Original Order No. 134 of 1979, heard on 12th May 1979.
Presented By:  Muhammad Ilyas, J
Lal v. Ghulam Muhammad etc. P L D 1975 Lah. 385 ; Maulvi Abdul Aziz Khan v. Mst. Shah Jahan Begtan and 2 others P L D 1971 S C 434 and Mian Ghulam Jafir v. Mien Muhammad Nawaz and another P L D 1977 Lah. 965 ref. Wasim Sajjad for Petitioners. Jariullah Khan for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND OTHERS----Appellants

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD YOUSUF--Respondent

Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 16, 13(2)

(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (V I of 1959) S. 16ProcedureRent Controller not bound in every case to follow Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908). [Practice and procedure]. Ayub Khan and another v. Fazal Haq and others P L D 1976 S C 422 and Khadim MohyudDin and another v. Ch. Rehmat Ali Nagra and another P L D 1965 S C 459 fol. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)  S. 13(2) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XVII, r'. 3V "Reasonable opportunity"DelayTenants allowed three adjourn ments to produce evidence but failing to produce any evidenceRent Controller refusing to allow any more time and tenants note offering any reason for their failure to produce evidenceRent 'A'' Controller, in circumstances, allowed "reasonable opportunity" to tenants in terms of S. 13(2)Case decided within two months of closing of evidenceSuch delay, held, reasonable and Rent Controller, by and large, observed provisions of O. XVII, r. 3, Civil Procedure Code.[DelayEvidence]. Date of hearing : 12th May 1979.                                                                                                             JUDGMENT This second appeal has been preferred by Muhammad Aslam and others against an order for their ejectment from certain premises owned by the respondent, Muhammad Yousaf. 2. The respondent had sought eviction of the appellants inter alia on the grounds of default and personal need. The appellants resisted the application alleging that the respondent had agreed to sell the property in dispute to them and thus they had ceased to be tenants under him on this, the Rent Controller, who was seized of the ejectment application filed by the respondent, framed the following issues : (1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased to exist between the parties ? O. P. R. (2) Relief. The appellants did not…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register