MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs Sh. GHULAM RASOOL
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's ejectment from premises. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had complied with the Rent Controller's direction to deposit arrears of rent and future rent as mandated by the relevant rent control legislation. The Rent Controller had previously ordered the petitioner's defence to be struck off due to non-compliance with the deposit order, leading to an ejectment order, which was subsequently affirmed by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that as the petitioner failed to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory deposit order issued under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, there was no legal basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The judgment reinforces the principle that failure to comply with a statutory direction to deposit rent in ejectment proceedings justifies the striking off of a tenant's defence and subsequent eviction.
- Does failure to comply with a direction to deposit rent under the Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 justify striking off a tenant's defence?
- Can an ejectment order be maintained if a tenant fails to deposit arrears and future rent as ordered by the Rent Controller?
- Section 13(6), Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
ORDER
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court in SA.
0. No,89 of 1992 dated 14-12-1992.
1. Relevant facts are that in ejectment proceedings the petitioner was directed under section 13(6) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 to deposit arrears of rent from March, 1989 to September, 1990 and future rent. He failed to comply with the order. His defence was struck off, as required under the law, and he was ordered to be ejected by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore vide order dated 4-11-1991. His first appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 31-5-1992 and second by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court vide order dated 14-12-1992.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show from the record that the order under section 13(6) of the aforesaid Ordinance was complied with. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- TANVEER ZIA vs Sh. MUHAMMAD BASHIR 1999 YLR 850