| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1975 SLG 3257 = 1975 SLD 3257 = 1975 PLD 684 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Second Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1968, decided on 23rd May 1975.
Presented By: Agha Ali Hyder, J
Robert Cotton Association Ltd. v. Firm Inayatullah & Company, Gujranwala P L D 1959 Lah. 178 and Venkatta Rao v. Satyanarayanmurthi A I R 1943 Mad. 698 ref. Akhtar Mahmood for Appellant. Ismail Munshi for
Respondent.
Second Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1968, decided on 23rd May 1975.
Presented By: Agha Ali Hyder, J
Robert Cotton Association Ltd. v. Firm Inayatullah & Company, Gujranwala P L D 1959 Lah. 178 and Venkatta Rao v. Satyanarayanmurthi A I R 1943 Mad. 698 ref. Akhtar Mahmood for Appellant. Ismail Munshi for
Respondent.
MESSRS YUSUF & Co.-Appellants-Opponents
VERSUS
Mst. RASHEEDA BEGUM-Respondent-Applicant
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)
Section: 13
Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)
Section: 30
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 0. XLI, r. 22
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) S. 13 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili tation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30-'Transferee under Act XXVIII of 1958 entitled to demand, from occupant of property transferred, rent on basis of latest assessment by Municipality or local authority-Mere fact that an appeal preferred against assessment by occupant, would not absolve him from paying rent at assessed rate. According to proviso (a) to section 30(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the landlord was entitled to charge the rent "on the basis of the latest assessment carried out by the Municipality or local authority, as the case may, . . . . . ". The landlord was entitled to demand rent at the rate assessed by the Municipality and the fact that an appeal against these assessments had been preferred by the tenants did not absolve them from f paying the rent yet the assessed rate. Malik Abdul Aziz v. West Pakistan Publishing Company Limited P L D 1965 Lah. 82 distinguished. Abdul Rashid v. Abdul Qadir Shah P L D 1966 Pesh. 89 not applicable. Mohammad Khan and another v. Mst. Sakinabai 1967 S C M R 435 and Abdul Bashir v. Mohammad Rafiq Khan Sherwani P L D 1974 Kar. 451 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) 0. XLI, r. 22-Appeal-Respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred separate appeal. When an appeal is preferred, the appellant, is, generally speaking, seeking to get rid of an adverse decision, adverse to him wholly or in part, which means that the opposite-party had succeeded wholly or in part.…