Mst. MAHJABEEN BEGUM vs R.M. KHAN
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the maintainability of an appeal against an order of the Rent Controller refusing to strike down a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a tentative rent payment order. The High Court had previously dismissed the appeal, holding that an order refusing to strike off defence is incidental or collateral and does not dispose of the entire dispute. The core legal question was whether an appeal lies against such an order under the relevant rent restriction laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held, in light of its precedent in Mst. Zubaida Begum v. Mst. S.T. Naqvi, that the appeal is indeed maintainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the matter for a decision on merits in accordance with the law.
- Does an appeal lie against an order of the Rent Controller refusing to strike down the defence for non-compliance with a rent payment order under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Is an order under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, refusing to strike off defence considered an incidental or collateral order that bars an appeal?
- Section 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether an appeal lies against an order of the Rent Controller refusing to strike down the defence for non-compliance of the order for the payment of rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959.
2. The High Court accepted the plea that the appeal was not maintainable on the ground that: "The order under section 13(6) refusing to strike off the defence is either incidental or collateral and 'does not embrace the whole gamut of the dispute'."
3. This view, however, stands superseded by the judgment of this Court in Mat. 2ubaida Begum v . Mst.
4. S . T . Naqvi 1986 SCMR 261. This being so, the counsel for the respondent rightly conceded that the High Court order should be set aside and the case be remanded to the High Court for decision on merits in accordance with law. We order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
Cited by 1 case
- MUKHTAR BEGUM Versus DILDAR AHMED 1994 CLC 1210