1992 MLD 1436

YAQUB MASIH JACOB Versus MRS. LOUISA DE SOUZA

Citation1992 MLD 1436

CourtLahore High Court

Case No.Writ Petition No.2574 of 1991

Date1991-10-12

Judge(s)Malik Muhammad Qayyum

ResultCase remanded

On 4th May, 1987 respondent No.1 filed an application against the petitioner and respondent No:2 seeking their eviction from a shop situate in property No.B‑III‑2S‑27 Gala Balman Ganj, Khajoor Mandi, Gujranwala on the ground of default in payment of rent and personal need. The ejectment petition was defended by the petitioner by filing written statement which led to the framing of issues. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the ejectment petition on 12th of May, 1990.

2. Aggrieved by this order respondent No.1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala only on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the order for deposit of rent passed under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as the tender made by it was not valid since the name of the landlord respondent No.1 has not been mentioned in the challan.

3. Mian Hamid Farooq, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that no order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 was passed by the Rent Controller directing the petitioner to deposit the rent and therefore, his defence could not have been struck off. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent is not in a position to refute this statement. It thus appears that the Additional District Judge has acted on a mistaken assumption that an order for deposit of rent had been passed by the Rent Controller which has not been complied with. His order is therefore, not sustainable.

As a result of what has been stated above this petition is accepted and the impugned judgment of the Additional District Judge Gujranwala dated 11th February, 1991 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the appeal riled by respondent No.1 shall be deemed to be pending before him and shall be decided afresh on merits.

Nor order as to costs.

A.A./M‑327/L Case remanded.