Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3278 = 1981 SLD 3278 = 1981 SCMR 752
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 41-R of 1980, decided on 7th May, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order dated 15th January, 1980 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in S. A. O. No. 496 of 1979)..
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ
Muhammad Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Saeed Mahmood, instructed by lmtiaz Mohammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.

Mst. ABBASI BEGUM-Petitioner

VERSUS

Mst. GHULAM FATIMA- Respondent

Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)

Section: 13(2)

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) S. 13 (2) read with S. 14-Fresh cause of action-Default in payment of rent continuing---Fresh cause of action arise:; as regards each default--Bar of S. 14, held, not applicable. Date of hearing : 7th May, 1980                                                                                                                        Judgment MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal- has been sought from an order dated 15th January 1980 of the Lahore High Court where by the petitioner's second appeal arising out of a case sunder the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was dismissed. The respondent landlady had filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from the property in dispute on ground of default. It was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 18th July, 1977. There was no plea/proof of payment of rent. The petitioner had denied the relation ship of landlord and tenant. The learned Rent Controller .held that the petitioner was tenant under the respondent and directed ejectment with out any further proceedings because there was no dispute with regard to non-payment of rent. This decision having been affirmed in first and second appeals the petitioner has sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner gave the background of the case involving protracted litigation including the demarcation proceedings with regard to dispute as to who was the transferee of the property in dis pute-th4 petitioner or the respondent. He also pointed out that there were earlier ejectment proceedings which had culminated in final order passed by the Rent Controller. Accordingly, he argued that the fresh proceedings resulting in the impugned orders were hit by the bar con tained in section 14 of the Ordinance. Learned counsel for the caveator brought to our notice that the question of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register