MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE HAIDER QURESHI vs DISTRICT JUDGE, PESHAWAR and 2
This matter concerns a review petition filed by the petitioner against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 15-1-1992, which had dismissed his civil appeal regarding a rent dispute. The core legal question before the Court was whether the respondent was disqualified from claiming the benefit of the second proviso to section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the basis of being a previous defaulter in rent payments. Upon reviewing the record and hearing the petitioner, the Court held that the review petition lacked merit. The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to lead any evidence to substantiate the claim that the respondent had defaulted on rent payments on earlier occasions. Consequently, the Court dismissed the review petition, finding no grounds for interference, although it exercised its discretion to waive the costs previously imposed on the petitioner. The judgment reinforces the principle that allegations of previous default must be supported by evidence to deprive a tenant of statutory protections under rent control legislation.
- Is a tenant who has defaulted on rent payments on previous occasions entitled to the benefit of the second proviso of section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Does a failure to lead evidence regarding previous defaults preclude a landlord from challenging a tenant's entitlement to statutory protections under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Section 13(2), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959
- Section 13(2), N.-W.F.P. Amendment Ordinance 1972
1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Muhammad Siddique Haider Qureshi, Advocate, petitioner herein, seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 15-1-1992, whereby his Civil Appeal No, 12-P of 1991 was dismissed with costs.
2. ' We have heard the petitioner in person and have perused the record of the case.
3. He reiterated his submissions made at the time of the hearing of the appeal and submitted that respondent 3 was a previous defaulter as well and, in consequence, is not entitled to the benefit of second proviso of section 13(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as amended by A N.-W.F.P. Amendment Ordinance, 1972. We are afraid this contention has no force, inasmuch as, no evidence was led to the effect that the respondent 3 had defaulted in the payment of rent on earlier occasions as well.
4. ' No case has been made out for review and petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the costs imposed upon the petitioner in the impugned judgment is waived.