Case Details

Citation(s)
1966 SLG 5275 = 1966 SLD 5275 = 1966 PLD 523
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Second Appeal No. 14 of 1966, decided on 31st January 1961.  
Presented By: Anwarul Haq, J
Mr. Faizanul Haq, Advocate

MUHAMMAD SHAFI-Appellant  

VERSUS

  -------ALLAH DINO-Respondent

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

Section: 13(6),15(4)

  West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)---S. 13(6)-Default in depositing monthly rent-Failure of landlord to raise objection promptly-Whether in particular case amounts to waiver-Depends on circumstances of case-Landlord, a blind man, raising objection after 5 or 6 months-Delay in raising objection could not, in circumstance, amount to waiver.   Masood Hussain v. Muhammad Saeed Khan P L D 1965 Lah. 11 ref.   West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)----Ss. 13(6) & 15(4) - Failure to deposit monthly rent Whether particular circumstances sufficient for preventing tenant from depositing rent in time-Question of fact and not of law Cannot be disturbed in second appeal-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 100.   West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)----S. 13(6)-deposit of monthly rent-Illness of wife or death of brother in India-Not sufficient circumstances for not depositing rent by due date (Obiter).   Mst. Shah Jehan v. Mst. Mukti P L D 1963 Kar. 777 ref.   ORDER   Mr. Faizanul Haq, Advocate raises the following contentions:   That the landlord did not object to the default for a period of five or six months andtherefore, it should be held as laid down in Masood Hussain v. Muhammad Saeed Khan P L D 1965 Lah. 11 that the default was waived;   that the appellant had deposited advance rent and therefore, there was in fact nodefault;   that the default was due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant andtherefore, it could not be said to be a default within the meaning of law as interpreted in Mst. Shah Jehan v. Mst. Mukti P L D 1963 Kar. 777.     It is true that in P L D 1965 Lab. 11, a learned Judge of this Court has observed thatby his failure to bring the default to the notice of the Court for a period of nearly one year the landlord should be deemed to have waived his right to object in this behalf, yet it is clear that the question whether in a particular case there is waiver of this objection or not will depend upon the circumstances of that case. In the present case, the landlord is stated to be a blind person and he has…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register