| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1969 SLG 236 1969 SLD 236 1969 PLD 424 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. K-P and K-20 of 1968, decision dated: 19th June 1969.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 26th September 1966, in Second Civil Appeals Nos. 371 and 372 of 1966).
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J. AND ABDUS SATTAR, J
S.Y. Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. A. Aziz M. Dastagir, Attorney for Appellant. M. Khalilullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Anwar Ali, Attorney.
Civil Appeals Nos. K-P and K-20 of 1968, decision dated: 19th June 1969.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 26th September 1966, in Second Civil Appeals Nos. 371 and 372 of 1966).
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J. AND ABDUS SATTAR, J
S.Y. Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. A. Aziz M. Dastagir, Attorney for Appellant. M. Khalilullah, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Anwar Ali, Attorney.
ABDUL GHAFOOR.
VS
AHMAD KUNHI
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962),Art. 58(3)-Special lea re to appeal to Supreme Court--Granted to consider whether application of provisions of S. 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, is confined to a proceeding before Rent Controller-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 15. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(6), (8)-Order passed under S. 13(6)--Held, remains effective only up to time of final determination of proceedings before Controller-[B. Lobo v. Sh. Muhammad Zakir P L D 1967 Lah. 194 overruled]. A close scrutiny of the provisions contained in parts 1 and 2 of subsection (6) and of subsection (8) of section 13 clearly indicates that an order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance remains effective only up to the time of the final determination of the proceedings before the Controller. It will be seen that under the first part of subsection (6) of section 13, the Rent Controller while directing deposit of arrears and the monthly rent fixes the amounts in regard to both tentatively if there is a dispute. Under the second part which may either be at the stage when the default is committed and the question of striking off the defence arises or when the proceedings are disposed of he is finally to determine the amount of rent due. In doing so he not only determines the period for which rent is due but also the rate at which the rent is payable. He is then to direct that the amount so determined be paid to the landlord subject to the adjustment of the approximate amount deposited by the tenant. It is, therefore, evident that the order passed under the first part merges in the order passed under the second part. In this view it cannot be said that the former remains effective even after the latter order is passed. Subsection (8) provides that at the conclusion of the proceedings or at such earlier date as may be specified by the Controller, the rent deposited by the tenant shall subject to the final determination of rent as payable by the tenant be paid to the landlord. I am unable to see how in view of the above provisions it can be argued that an order…
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