| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3014 = 1981 SLD 3014 = 1981 SCMR 276 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. K-70 of 1974, decided on 13th January, 1981. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi dated 23-11-1973 and 30-4-1974, passed in Civil Appeal No. 486/68 and Civil Miscellaneous 56/74).
Presented By: Dorab Patel, Actg. C. J. and Mushtaq Hussain, J
A. Aziz Dastagir, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. K-70 of 1974, decided on 13th January, 1981. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi dated 23-11-1973 and 30-4-1974, passed in Civil Appeal No. 486/68 and Civil Miscellaneous 56/74).
Presented By: Dorab Patel, Actg. C. J. and Mushtaq Hussain, J
A. Aziz Dastagir, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD UMAR-Appellant
VERSUS
Mst. AIYSHA AZIZ-Respondent
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)
Section: 13(6)
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) S. 13 (6)-Striking off defence-Delay of three days in deposit of tentative rent-Appellant not explaining and justifying each day's delay-Tenant having been running a hotel Inere plea of illness, held, not sufficient explanation for delay in deposit of rent. Date of hearing : 13th January, 1981. JUDGMENT DORAB PATEL, AGTG. C. J.-The appellant is the tenant of the ground floor of a property in Karachi which is owned by the respondent. The respondent filed an eviction application against the appellant in 1965 and on 25-4-1966 the Rent Controller, Karachi, passed the usual order for the deposit of tenta tive rent. This order was not complied with, because even according to the appellant, he deposited the rent of September, 1966 on the 17th of October, 1966. Thus as there was a clear delay of three days, in the deposit of rent, the respondent filed an application for striking off his defence. The appellant contested this application and submitted that he had been prevented from depositing the rent of September, 1966 before the 15th of October, 1966, because be had been ill. And, this plea was supported by a medical certi ficate. However, Mr. Dastagir admitted that the appellant was running a hotel in the demised premises, therefore, he could easily have sent his employees or servants to deposit the tent on iris behalf and, therefore, his plea that he was prevented by illness `from complying with the order for deposit of tentative rent' was rightly rejected by the Rent Controller but by his order dated 16th January, 1968, the Rent Controller; struck off his defence and directed him to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent within a fortnight. The appellant challenged this order…