Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 767 1982 SLD 767 1982 PLD 201
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 11242 of 1980, heard on 14th November, 1981
MUHAMMAD ILYAS, J
Hakam Qureshi for Petitioner. Mian Muhammad Bashir for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.

MUHAMMAD SHARIFer

VS

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND 4 others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)- S. 13-Eviction-Ex parte order-Case coming up before Rent Controller on 5-12-1978 and Rent Controller directing notice to be issued to tenant petitioner for 10-12-1978 on deposit of process fee by landlord respondent-No process fee deposited and no notice issued for10-12-1978-December 10, 1978, being a holiday case adjourned to 12-12-1978 and petitioner proceeded against ex parte on such date­ Petitioner, held, not intimated date of such hearing and ex pane proceeding could not be ordered against him. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959 -- S. 13-Ex parte proceedings-Rent Controller if thinking evasion or refusal of service by petitioner tenant to have amounted to his service, he ought to have ordered ex parte proceeding against tenant .. on day in respect of which service evaded by petitioner-Reports of evasion or refusal in regard to dates earlier than date of ex parte order, held, could not be made use of for ordering ex parte proceedings q on date when ex parte order passed. JUDGMENT This writ petition is directed against an order of eviction passed against the petitioner, Muhammad Sharif, in consequence of an application made by respondent No. 1, Muhammad Hussain, hereinafter referred to as the respondent. It was an ex parte order made by a Rent Controller which was affirmed by an Additional District Judge, in appeal. Feeling aggrieved by their orders, the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition. 2. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no intimation of the date on which he was proceeded against ex parse and, therefore, the order passed against him was without lawful authority. 3. In reply, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that before ex parte proceedings were ordered against the petitioner notices were issued to him but he had evaded service. According to him, a telegram was also sent to him, but he had refused to receive the same. He was therefore, of the view that there was nothing wrong with the ex pare proceedings ordered by the learned Rent Controller. 4, Ex parte proceedings were ordered…
🔒
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