RIAZ AHMED KHALIL vs HABIB KHAN
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent against the petitioner in respect of residential premises in Karachi on the grounds of default in payment of rent, personal requirement, and subletting. The Rent Controller directed the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent and future monthly rent by specified dates. Upon non-compliance, the petitioner's defence was struck off. The petitioner contended that he was unaware of the deposit order due to his counsel's negligence and deposited the rent upon discovery. The High Court found the petitioner's counsel guilty of gross negligence which could not excuse the petitioner. The Supreme Court considered the contentions and found no question of law involved, holding that the petitioner is bound by the conduct and negligence of his counsel. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- Whether a tenant can be excused from non-compliance with a rent deposit order due to the negligence of his counsel?
- Does a petition against the striking off of a defence for non-deposit of rent involve a substantial question of law?
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--The respondent applied for ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed residential premises situate in Peer Ilahi Bux Colony, Karachi on the grounds of default in payment of rent from October, 1982 to February, 1983, personal requirement and subletting. By order of the Rent Controller, dated 15-5-1983 the petitioner was directed to deposit arrears of Rs.1,750 on or before 10th June, 1983 and continue to deposit future monthly rent on or before the 10th of each succeeding month. As this order was admittedly not complied with the defence of the petitioner was struck off pursuant to respondent's application in this behalf.
2. According to the petitioner he was not informed of the order, dated 15-5-1983 by his counsel and it was only on 27-7-1983 when he came to know about the same and deposited the arrears of rent within three days. It is stated that the rent application was fixed for hearing on 14-5-1983 when no order was passed and the case was put off to 15-5-1983 on which date it was taken up by a link Judge and the order of deposit of rent was passed. The learned High Court on examining the facts of the case found that it was a case of gross negligence on the part of the learned counsel of the petitioner for which the petitioner could not be excused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same, contentions as were advanced before the High Court which have not impressed us. He was unable to satisfy us that any law point was involved in the matter. The petition merits no consideration and dismissed.