| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1967 SLG 5390 = 1967 SLD 5390 = 1967 PLD 21 |
Dacca High Court
Civil Revision Case No. 204 of 1966, decided on 19th April 1966.
Presented By: K. M. Hasan and Abdus Subhan Choudhuri, JJ
Ansar Ali and Md. Nurul Huda for Petitioner. Muhammad Abdul Huq for Opposite-Party No. 1.
Civil Revision Case No. 204 of 1966, decided on 19th April 1966.
Presented By: K. M. Hasan and Abdus Subhan Choudhuri, JJ
Ansar Ali and Md. Nurul Huda for Petitioner. Muhammad Abdul Huq for Opposite-Party No. 1.
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN-Petitioner
VERSUS
CAPTAIN MUHAMMAD ARFAN ALI AND OTHERS Opposite-Parties
Law: East Bengal Services Rules
Section: 15(1)
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 115
East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Ordinance (XX of 1963), S. 15 (1) read with East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Rules, 1964-Fixation of standard rent-Rules do not require Rent Controller to obtain report of Engineer-Report, however, called for by Rent Controller prior to coming into force of Rules-Taking into consideration such report-Does not render action of Rent Controller without jurisdiction nor could he be said to have acted with material irregularity so as to attract provisions of S. 115, C. P. C.-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115. JUDGMENT HASAN, J.-This Rule is directed against an order fixing the standard rent of the two premises together with other structures at Rs. 500 per month. The landlord opposite-party filed an application under section 15 (1) of the East Pakistan Premises Rent Control Ordinance No. XX of 1963 before the House Rent Controller for fixing the standard rent of the premises in occupation of the petitioner. According to the landlord, the rent that was being paid by the petitioner was much less than that which is legally payable under this Ordinance. This claim of the landlord was opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the monthly rent of Rs. 240 which was being paid by the petitioner to the landlord was more than sufficient for structures of the nature in question. It was further contended that the two premises were in dilapidated condition and the market value could not be Rs. 50,000 as claimed by the landlord but much less than that. It appears from the order of the House Rent Controller that on 22nd August 1964, the parties filed hazira in the first instance but subsequently the landlord filed a petition praying for time stating some grounds therein. The petition for time was rejected; and it appears that both the parties intended that the case might be disposed of on the documents filed by the parties. Accordingly the House Rent Controller took into consideration three affidavits, which were sworn and filed by the applicant, namely, the landlord and also a report submitted by the Executive Engineer who was ordered to do so. The House Rent Controller also took into consideration the…