AKBAR ALI vs RAHMAN And Another
The matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by a landlord seeking ejectment of tenants on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal need under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal question concerns whether the respondents committed a wilful default in paying rent for the alleged period. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no default was established, noting that the tenants had a history of regular rent payment, attempted to pay via money order and deposit in court when the landlord withheld receipts, and that the landlord's allegations appeared to be a fabricated story. The petitions were accordingly dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment that the tenants' conduct was unblemished and discretion was rightly exercised in their favour.
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the ejectment order on the ground of no default?
- Does the failure of a landlord to issue rent receipts justify the tenant sending rent through money orders or depositing it in court?
- Can concurrent findings regarding the absence of wilful default in rent payment be interfered with in leave to appeal?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--In both the above-mentioned petitions, landlord /petitioner is the same and the period of default in C.P.L.A. No. 332/K is alleged to be from August, 1973 to 30-9-1975 and in C.P.L.A. No. 333/K it is w.e.f. 1-8-1973 to 30-9-1975 while the other facts are common in these to petitions. This order will, therefore, dispose of both the Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos.
332/K and 333/K of 1984.
2. The petitioner brought ejectment applications under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the respondents in the Court of the Rent Controller on the grounds of default and personal need. The learned Rent Controller allowed the applications and ordered ejectment of the respondents vide his order. Dated 15-9-1980 on ground of default only for the period from 1-8-1973 to November, 1974. On appeal, the said order was reversed by the learned Judge of the Sind High Court vide. The impugned judgment, dated 10-4-1984 holding that no default has been established and the discretion should have been exercised in favour of the respondents. It was observed that the tenant/respondents have been paying the rent regularly from the inception of their tenancy and it is their contention that the alleged period of default is due to the fact that the landlord/ petitioner, on the pretext of non-availability of printed receipt book, did not issue any receipt. The respondents/ tenant, therefore, sent money orders for to months and also applied for depositing the due rent in the Court of the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner could not controvert this stand and his evidence was also not convincing. We also find that against both the respondents, almost identical facts of default has been alleged which smells as a made-up story of default in the payment of rent. The conduct of the tenant/ respondents has also been taken into consideration by the learned High Court Judge in the impugned order as 'unblemished'. Hence, we do not think that these petitions merit consideration and, we therefore, reject the same. Petitions for leave to Appeals Nos. K/332 and K/333 of 1984 are, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- SHAFIQUR REHMAN vs SAEED AHMED 1991 MLD 1393
- ABM and others vs HEER BAI 1987 CLC 692