ABDUL GHANI vs NAWAB DIN
This matter originated from proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, concerning the ejectment of the petitioner, Abdul Ghani, from a property in Sheikhupura at the instance of the respondent, Nawab Din, a transferee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The Supreme Court had previously granted leave to appeal and allowed the petitioner to retain possession subject to specific conditions: depositing future monthly rents and furnishing security for arrears as determined by the Rent Controller. The respondent subsequently moved the Court alleging the petitioner's non-compliance, claiming the petitioner had been depositing rent for a different property to create a facade of compliance while failing to pay the actual rent for the disputed premises. The petitioner contested these allegations. Rather than adjudicating these collateral disputes, which would delay the final resolution, the Court determined that the interests of justice required an expedited hearing of the main appeal. Consequently, the Court ordered the main appeal to be heard on the existing record at Rawalpindi, bypassing further litigation on the incidental issues of compliance.
- Can the Supreme Court bypass collateral disputes regarding compliance with interim orders to expedite the hearing of the main appeal?
- Does the failure to comply with conditions imposed for continued possession justify an immediate decision on the main appeal?
- West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. MUWMMAD GUL. J. In the above petition arising out of proceedings under W. P. Ordinance VI of 1959, by order dated the 1st October 1973, leave was granted to Abdul Ghani whose ejectment had been ordered from the property bearing No. B-VII-S. 7/462 Sheikhupura at the instance of Nawab Din, the respondent landlord, a transferee of the same under the provisions of Act 28 of 1958. While granting leave, the petitioner's existing possession of the suit premises was also directed to continue subject to the conditions laid down to the earlier order of this Court dated 11th July 1973 namely
(a) that he shall deposit all future rents beginning from the month of July 1973 by the 13th of each successive month ; and
(b) that he shall furnish security for the entire amount of arrears to be determined by the Rent Controller within one month .Of such determination.
2. Nawab Din respondent has now applied that the petitioner has failed to comply with the above two conditions and that on an enquiry from the learned Rent Controller, it transpired that Abdul Ghani had been depositing rent at the rate of Rs. 3 which according to the assessment register was rent of the contiguous premise bearing property No. B-VIIi-S. 7/466 of which Abdul Ghani petitioner was the transferee. I his according to the respondent was to create a facade the he had been complying with this Court's order subject to which he was allowed to continue the possession of the premises in dispute, though the monthly rental of the suit premise is Rs. 25.
3. Abdul Ghani has, in his rejoinder, stoutly resisted the above allegation.
4. We have heard the parties' learned counsel and we consider it just and convenient to decide the main appeal Instead of delaying its decision which would be the inevitable result if the parties are allowed to embark upon litigation on side issues arising in the case.
5. Accordingly, we direct that the main appeal shall be heard at Rawal--pindi on the present record during the week commencing from 21-11-1975.
Cited by 1 case
- MOZAL AND 11 Others vs THE STATE 1983 P Cr. L J 64