Pakistan Case LawUSMAN and others Versus Haji ABDUL SATTAR and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed in limine the petitioners' appeal against an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of default. The core legal questions concern whether the lower courts erred in ordering ejectment without first determining the necessity of a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, or Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the courts failed to establish the correct quantum of rent before finding a default. The petitioners contend that the rent was Rs. 20 per month, not Rs. 60 as alleged by the respondents, and that the default finding was premature without resolving this factual dispute. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower courts were justified in ordering ejectment based on the existing record. The Court also issued an interim order restraining ejectment, conditional upon the petitioners depositing rent at the disputed rate of Rs. 60 per month, without prejudice to the final determination of the actual rent amount.
- Is a finding on the quantum of rent a prerequisite for an ejectment order based on default?
- Can an ejectment order be sustained without determining the necessity of statutory notice under the relevant rent laws?
- Are the lower courts justified in ordering ejectment when the underlying factual basis regarding rent amount is disputed?
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, ACTG C.J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 20-4-1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh F.R.A. No,210 of 1995, filed by the petitioners against the order dated 13-2-1995 of the learned IInd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (South), granting ejectment on the ground of default, dismissing the same in limine. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2.In support of the above petition Mr. M.G. Dastgir, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the two Courts below proceeded on wrong assumption to the effect that in view of the remand order dated 25-9-1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in an earlier F.R.A. No,548 of 1988, it was not necessary to decide the question, as to whether notice under section 13-A of the late West Pakistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, or under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was not necessary though the question of default cannot be decided without first proving that after the service of a notice under the above provision of the Rent Laws, the petitioners had failed to tender or deposit or pay the rent within the statutory period mentioned therein. It has been further urged by him that admittedly the last rent receipt for the month of May, 1970 indicates that the rent was Rs,20 per month (page 108 of the paper book) and not Rs, 60 per month, which was alleged by the respondents and, therefore, in the absence of any finding as to the quantum of rent, the ejectment order on the ground of default could not have been passed as admittedly the petitioners started depositing rent in a miscellaneous rent application after the issuance of the above rent receipt.
3.We are inclined to grant leave to consider, as to whether on the basis of the record, the two Courts below were justified in ordering the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default. Leave is, accordingly, granted. The petitioners shall not be ejected till further orders subject to deposit of rent at the rate of Rs,60 per month without prejudice to the contentions of the parties as to the quantum of rent.
Judges on this bench
- Ajmal Mian2,984 judgments
- Nasir Aslam Zahid1,225 judgments