MUHAMMAD BAQIR QURESHI vs Mst. RAZIA BEGUM
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an eviction order under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959. The petitioner challenged the eviction on two primary grounds: first, that the Ordinance does not permit eviction for failure to pay rent in advance, even where such an agreement exists between the parties, as the statute only recognizes default in payment after the due date (the end of the month); and second, that the High Court erred by failing to hear arguments regarding the landlady's personal need, dismissing it summarily as a conclusive finding of fact. The Supreme Court found that the points raised by the petitioner regarding the interpretation of the rent statute and the procedural fairness in the High Court required further consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directed the petitioner to furnish security, and ordered the maintenance of the status quo, conditional upon the tenant continuing to pay rent in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance.
- Does the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959 permit eviction for failure to pay rent in advance when such payment is stipulated by agreement?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction for non-payment of rent before the expiry of sixty days from the date the rent became due?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-Learned counsel has argued that under, the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance VI of 1959, no eviction of a tenant can be ordered if he fails to make payment of rent in advance , even though this was the agreement between the parties. He submits that despite the existence of any such agreement - the Ordinance takes note of default only not paid up to sixty days from the date it was due which date always is the end of the relevant month and not any date in advance thereof. For this proposition he relies upon Iltaf Hussain v. TaibHussain ( PLD 1977 Lah. 110)and Muhammad Ashraf v. Muhammad .4nwar (PLD 1975 Pesh. 254)
2. He further submitted that the other ground for eviction of his client was the personal need of the landlady but on that point he was not allowed to address arguments and the High Court recorded its order without hearing the petitioner observing that it was a conclusive finding of fact. In this respect he refers to para 10 of the High Court judgment.
3. The points raised require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs. 500. Status quo meanwhile subject to regular payment of rent in B accordance with section 13 of the Ordinance Case to be made ready for fixation within six months. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.