MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus ZUBAIDA BEGUM
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against eviction orders passed by a Rent Controller and subsequently upheld by the 1st Appellate Court and the High Court. The petitioner had faced ex parte eviction proceedings due to repeated defaults in appearance. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance to justify setting aside the ex parte proceedings and whether the appeal against the final eviction order, which was filed with an eighteen-month delay, was maintainable. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for his default or to provide material to rebut the grounds for eviction. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's use of dilatory tactics to obstruct the eviction process for five years. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural defaults without sufficient cause and unexplained, significant delays in filing appeals are fatal to a petitioner's case, particularly when dilatory tactics are evident.
- Can an appeal against an eviction order be entertained when it is filed with an unexplained delay of eighteen months?
- Does a petitioner's failure to show sufficient cause for repeated non-appearance justify the refusal to set aside ex parte eviction proceedings?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when it is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J. ‑An order for eviction of the petitioner has been passed by the Rent Controller and maintained, on appeal, by the 1st Appellate Court and the High Court.,
2. At first the petitioner appealed against the order of the Rent Controller setting down the application for his eviction for ex parte proceedings on account of his repeated default in appearance. The appeal was dismissed on merits but an observation was made on the basis of which the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st Appellate Court against the final order of ejectment which was barred by 18 months. The District Judge dismissed the appeal both on merits and as barred by time. A further appeal from that order has been dismissed by the High Court on ground of delay of 18 months for which no sufficient cause was shown.
3. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal on grounds which have little or no merit. Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 808 is also barred by 21 days. It appears that the petitioner has been adopting dilatory tactics to obstruct disposal of the application for his eviction. He has thereby succeeded in hanging on‑to the tenement for 5 years after the application for eviction was made.
4. On merits the petitioner has failed to make out a case for setting aside ex pane proceedings as no sufficient cause‑was shown for default in appear ance. As regards the petition directed against the final order of eviction, the petitioner has failed to place on the record any material to rebut the grounds on which the order of eviction is based.
5. Both the petitions for leave to appeal are, in consequence, dismissed,
6. Petitions dismissed.