Case Details

Citation(s)
1980 SLD 3177 = 1980 CLC 1167
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal from Original Order No. 446 of 1978, decided on 10th October, 1979.
Presented By: Muhammad Ilyas, J
Sahibzada Nasir Ali for Appellant.    Islam Ali Qureshi for
Respondent.

ABDUL WAHID----Appellant

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD YASIN----Respondent

Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 13(2)(1), (3)(i)

(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)  S. 13(2)(1)-Ejectment - Delay in payment of advance rent Held: No default. Even if there is a stipulation in a rent deed regarding payment of rent in advance, tenant cannot be held to be a defaulter if rent is paid within fifteen days of its having fallen due, i.e. within fifteen days of expiry of period for which, according to terms of rent deed, rent is required to be paid in advance. Muhammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Anwar P L D 1975 Pesh. 254 rel. Iltaf Hussain v. Talib Hussain P L D 1977 Lah. 110 ref. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) S. 13(3)(i)-Ejectment-Personal requirement-Cause of action maturing during pendency of proceedings-Party seeking relief, held, cannot be non-suited for want of cause of action at time of initiation of proceedings.-[Cause of action]. If a party has no cause of action at time of initiating legal proceeding for seeking any relief but cause of action matures during pendency of proceedings he may not be non-suited merely for reason that cause of action was immature at time of filing proceedings. Abdullah Bhai and others v. Ahmad Din P L D 1964 S C 106 and Manzoor Ahmad Khan v. Syed Maqsood Ali P L D 1975 Lah. 1521 rel.     Date of hearing 10th October, 1979.                                                                                                                                     JUDGMENT This second appeal has been filed by one Abdul Wahid against an order of his ejectment from a shop owned by the respondent Muhammad Yasin. 2. The appellant's eviction was ordered by a Rent Controller on the ground of default and personal need, and his order has been confirmed by has, the edge while dismissing the first appeal of the appellant. He has therefore come up in second appeal to this Court.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register