Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 621 1981 SLD 621 1981 SCMR 1166
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 208 of 1977, decision dated: 1st April, 1979.Lahore, dated 19-1-1977, 19-11977thin judgment569 of 1976) the Lahore High Court
MUHAMMAD AKRAM, AND KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, JJ
Malik Taleb Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

VS

Syed MUHAMMAD SHAKIR

Law:

Section:

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)---S. 13(2) (i) (6)-Direction for deposit of rent--0mission to order deposit of rent-A mistake but makes no difference where petitioner tenant admittedly defaulter in payment of rent throughout without any cause-Courts below, held, perfectly justified in holding Rent Controller having actually intended to direct eviction of petitioner due to overall default on his; art and not any default under subsection (6) of S. 13 of Ordinance VV1i of 1959. Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3). ORDER KARAM ELAHEE CFIAUHAN, J. --The dispute in this case is about a house bearing No. 4-8-1974, situated in Block No. 6, Sargodha. Syed Muhammad Shakir (hereinafter called the landlord) as stated in para. 3 of the present petition on 21-11-1967 filed an application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, VI of 1959 (hereinafter called the-Ordinance) for eviction of Muhammad Siddique (hereinafter called the tenant petitioner) on the ground of non-payment of rent. The tenant/ petitioner denied the tenancy and the relationship of landlord and tenant, but the learned Rent Controller by means of his order dated 24-9-1974, decided that matter in favour of the landlord and held that Muhammad Siddique was tenant under him. Later, on 21-11-1974, as the rent admittedly had not been paid, therefore, the learned Rent Controller directed eviction of the tenant from the house aforesaid. 2. The tenant petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha on 3-7-1976. 3. The tenant/petitioner then filed a second appeal being S. A. O. No. 569 of 1976, which also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 19-1-1977. 4. The tenant petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court. 5. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his client was a defaulter and had not paid any rent. However, his submission was that the learned Rent Controller was under an impression that he was passing the eviction order under subsection…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492