| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1205 2004 SLD 1205 2004 SCMR 1453 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1186/L of 2004, decision dated: 1st June, 2004.(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-1-2004 of the Lahore. High Court, Lahore passed in F.A.O. No.8 of 2003)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAYED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Akhtar Masood Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents
Civil Petition No. 1186/L of 2004, decision dated: 1st June, 2004.(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-1-2004 of the Lahore. High Court, Lahore passed in F.A.O. No.8 of 2003)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAYED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Akhtar Masood Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents
M.H. MUSSADAQ
VS
MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL and another
Law:
Section:
Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)----S. 17(9)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185, (3)---"Default"---Striking off defence---Tentative rent order, non-compliance of---Default of few days in deposit of tentative rent---Rent Controller passed tentative rent order and directed the tenant to deposit the same within specified period---Tenant deposited the rent with a delay of three days in first month and with a delay of ten days in subsequent month---Rent Controller struck off the defence of the tenant and passed eviction order---Validity---If the tenant failed to deposit the amount of rent before specified date, or, as the case may be, before 5th of each month, then under S.17 (9) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, his defence would be struck off---Even one day's delay in making the deposit would be default within the meaning of S.17(9) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, as the same was mandatory in nature and Rent Controller' had no power to extend time and condone the delay--¬ Tentative rent order could be passed by the Rent Controller even if ground of default was not alleged for seeking eviction---Non-compliance with the tentative rent order was directly punishable and in consequence the defence of tenant could be struck off and eviction could be ordered Supreme Court maintained the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller---Leave to appeal was refused. Misbahullah Khan v. Mst. Memoona Taskinuddin 1995 SCMR 287 and Province of Punjab and others v. Muhammad Jalil-ur-Rehman 1986 SCMR 1705 rel. JUDGMENT ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J-----Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner, a tenant against the judgment, dated 20-1-2004 passed in F.A.O. No. 8 of 2003 by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the order, dated 30-12-2002 passed by the Rent Controller striking down the defence of petitioner under section 17(9) of the Cantonments rent Restrictions Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was maintained. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that respondent Muhammad Zafar Iqbal filed ejectment petition under section 17 of the Act against petitioner M.H. Mussadaq on…
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