WAHID BUXSOOMRO vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD BALUCH
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of an appeal by the Sind High Court. The petitioner had filed an ejectment application against the respondent tenant on the grounds of default in rent and personal requirement. The Rent Controller passed an ex parte ejectment order, leading to the tenant's dispossession. Subsequently, the Rent Controller set aside the ex parte order, and the petitioner's appeal against that order was dismissed by the High Court for lack of legal competence. The petitioner contended that the respondent's application to set aside the ex parte order was barred under sub-section (2) of section 19 and that the appeal under section 21(1) was maintainable. The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal to consider the important questions of law raised regarding the competency of applications and appeals under the relevant rent restriction laws, directing status quo as to possession pending the hearing.
- Whether an application for setting aside an ex parte order is barred under sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Is an appeal under section 21(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 competent against an order setting aside an ex parte ejectment order?
- Section 19(2), Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 21(1), Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--The facts of this case shortly stated are that on 26-11-1979 the petitioner filed ejectment application against the respondent, his tenant, on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent from May, 1976 to November, 1979 and also that he required the premises for his personal use. When the case came up for hearing on 9-2-1980 the respondent was called absent, and the Rent Controller accord--ingly passed an ex party order against him and subsequently passed the final ex parse ejectment order on 28-2-1980. The respondent was ejected from the premises on 14-5-1980, and on the following day he filed an application for setting aside of the ex pane orders. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller by the order dated 20-5-1980 and petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of Sind High Court on the ground that it was not competent in law. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.
2. Mr. Ali Akbar, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that "respondent's application for setting aside the ex party order was not competent in law due to specific bar placed by the provisions of sub--section (2) of section 19 and petitioner's appeal under section 21
(1) was competent as it was not directed against an interim order."
3. Since the points of law raised in this petition are likely to affect large number of cases, we grant special leave to appeal. Security Rs. 1,000.
4. The appeal shall be prepared and made ready on the present record, it will however be open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. ..
5. The proceedings before the Rent Controller may continue but status quo with regard to the possession of the disputed premises shall be maintained till the appeal is decided, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to deposit rent in Court as per orders already passed in this behalf in the case.
6. The appeal shall be fixed for regular hearing during the next session.