ZOHRA BEGUM Versus PAKISTAN BURMAH SHELL

ORDER

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J .‑‑Both these petition are for leave to appeal from the consolidated judgment of Sind High Court, dated 8‑4‑1984 by which two appeals filed by petitioner were dismissed. The facts briefly stated are as under.

2. Petitioner leased out her plot No.569, Garden East, Karachi to respondent under a registered lease dated 27‑1‑1975 for ten years from 1‑5‑1975. Under the terms and conditions of the lease, rent was payable annually at Rs.2,750 per month in advance, before commence ment of each year. On 19‑4‑1981 respondent sent a cheque for Rs.33,000 as advance rent for one year commencing from 1st stay, 1981 but petitioner refused to accept the amount for the reason that she had already filed an ejectment application against respondent on 23‑2‑1981 on the ground that she required the property for her personal use. Respondent then deposited the aforesaid amount of rent through Miscellaneous Application No.2204 of 1981 in the Court of Rent Controller NO.XII, Karachi. The Rent Controller, however, returned the application to respondent by the order, dated 28‑10‑1981 for presentation before the Rent Controller of competent jurisdiction for the reason that the premises were not situated within his territorial jurisdiction. The respondent did not file any appeal against this order, and on the other hand made an application on 1‑11‑1981 being Miscellaneous Application No.5182 of 1981 before the Rent Controller No.1 praying that the amount deposited in the Court of the Rent Controller No. XII "be deemed as having been deposited under the order of this Hon'ble Court".

3. The Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties, dismissed the ejectment application by the order, dated 3‑7‑1982 and by another order, dated 31‑7‑1982 allowed Miscellaneous Application No.5182 of 1981.

4. Petitioner thereupon filed two appeals, one against the order dated 3‑7‑1982 and the other against the order dated 31‑7‑1982. Both these appeals were, however, dismissed by the consolidated judgment dated 8‑4‑1984, as stated earlier.

5. Mr. S. A. Samad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Court while holding that the Rent Controller No. XI' had no territorial jurisdiction to accept the deposit of rent, has erred in taking the view that the order of the Rent Controller No.1 was valid in law.

6. Since the question of law as to the interpretation of section 10 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance is involved and it is likely to affect large number of cases we grant leave in both these petitions.

M.I./2‑28/S Leave granted.