Qazi DAOOD vs Qazi MUHAMMAD FAHIM
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Sind High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises. The ejectment application was instituted by the respondent under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, following a notice served upon the tenant stating that the landlord had retired from government service and required the premises for personal use. The core legal question before the court concerned the validity of the ejectment notice and whether any alleged defect vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly rejected the plea regarding the defective notice because it was not raised in the initial objections before the Rent Controller and because any defect regarding the statutory period stood cured since the actual proceedings were initiated only after the expiry of that period. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an objection regarding a defective ejectment notice can be raised for the first time before the High Court when it was not pleaded before the Rent Controller?
- Does a defect in the period specified in an ejectment notice stand cured if the eviction proceedings are actually commenced after the expiry of the required period?
- Section 14, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 7-10-1987 by which an appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller directing his eviction from the demised premises was upheld.
2. ' Learned Rent Controller passed that order on an ejectment application filed by respondent under Section 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. Earlier, the respondent had served notice on the petitioner under the afore-said provision of law informing him that he had retired from Government service and required the premises for his own use.
3. In support of the appeal before the High Court, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the said notice was defective but this plea was rejected by the learned Judge in the High Court on the ground that such plea was not raised in the objections filed against the ejectment application before the Rent Controller. Moreover, learned Judge noticed that the defect in the notice complained was as to the period after which ejectment proceedings were to be commenced, and this defect, if any, stood cured as the proceedings were in fact initiated after the expiry of the said period. We find that the learned Judge has already dealt with all the pleas that were urged in support of this petition and rejected them for valid and proper reasons.
4. ' There is therefore no force in this petition, and it is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.