Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.

Section: 13(6),15(1),15(b)

  West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13(6) & 15(1) (b) Power conferred on Controller to strike of defence under S. 13 (6)--Available to appellate authority under S. 15 (1) (b)-Controller refusing to strike off defence despite non compliance by party with order regarding deposit of arrears of rent, etc.-Order of refusal open to appeal under S. 15 (1) (b) and appellate authority competent to pass correct order striking off defence-[Jalal Din v. Azizuddin P L D 1963 Lah. 436 reversed.]   Dates of hearing: 4th, 11th November, 2nd and 9th December 1963.   JUDGMENT   NAZEER AHMAD MAHMOOD, J.------This order relates to two appeals separately filed by Muhammad Husain and Bagh Din appellants against Meraj Din and Siraj Din respondents. They are directed against the order, dated the 11th of November 1961, of Malik Abdul Hamid, District Judge, Lahore, who, as an Appellate Authority, under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, set aside the order, dated the 11 the of July 1961, of Mr. C. A. Rahman, Rent Controller, Lahore, and directed the striking off of the defence of the appellants made before the Refit Controller in reply to the applications of the respondents. The aforesaid appellate order arose, in the following circumstances.   Meraj Din and Siraj Din were issued a P. T. O. with regard to Building No. SE-IV-38-S-2, Montgomery Park, Lahore, by the Settlement Authorities under the order, dated the 31st of May 1960, of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. In their applications for ejectment of the appellants, Meraj Din and Siraj Din respondents averred that they had notified the appellants by an acknowledgment due registered letter that the property in dispute had been transferred to them and that since the appellants had not paid rent for the period from the 1st of June 1960 to the 15th of December 1960 despite notices to make payment of the rent due from them, they were liable to ejectment.   In their written statements the appellants contended that the applicants-respondentshad not served them with a notice within the meaning of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and…