Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
S. 16(2)–Tenant–Ejectment of–Default in payment of rent–Ground of–Striking off defence of tenant–Challenge to–It is matter of record that Miscellaneous Rent Case No. 1544 of 1991 was filed by appellant in same court where he deposited rent–Payment for period of January to July 1991 was disputed as appellant claimed to have paid but respondent denied to have received same–Order of deposit of arrears of rent for said period, was passed at back of appellant–In substance, due rent has been deposited, but technically, rent order dated 23-9-1991 has not been complied with–Held: There is force in contention that had appellant knowledge of rent order requiring him to deposit arrears and monthly rent in court, he would not have moved on 25-9-1991 Miscellaneous Rent Case No. 1544 of 1991 for deposit of rent in court–Appeal accepted and case remanded to trial court. PLJ 1994 Karachi 315
S.15–Tenant–Ejectment of–Challenge to–Finding of Rent Controller as to default in payment of rent is un-exceptionable–Finding on point of subletting is not open to interference because respondent filed affidavit that appellant had sublet premises to Kallan, but appellant has not denied same in his affidavit-in-evidence–Issue about personal requirement of shop has also rightly been decided in favour of respondent–Held: There is no merit in these appeals–Appeals dismissed. PLJ 1992 Karachi 97
S.16(2)–Tenant–Non-deposit of arrears of rent by–Striking off defence of–Challenge to–There is total non-compliance of order of Rent Controller which had forced him to pass order striking off defence of appellant–Held: Appellant himself had chosen not to deposit rent as ordered by Controller and in these circumstances, Controller was perfectly justified in striking off defence of appellant and directing his ejectment from shop in dispute–Appeal dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 397
S. 14(4)–Tenant handed over Possession of property to landlord for reconstruction–Restoration of same dimension & location–Determination of–Appliction to–Dismissal of–Challenge to–It will be just and proper, if Rent Controller determines location and dimension of shop taken from appellant–Held : Courts are established to solve problems of public and not to create problems for them. PLJ 1996 Karachi 410
S. 15 read with S. 12((2) of Civil Proceeding Code, 1908–Tenant–Ejectment of–Personal bonafide need (landlord claims that he was unemployed and wanted to run shop)–Ground of–Eviction allowed–Concealment of fact/fraud and misrepresentation by landlord–Challenge to–Eviction application was filed on 25.11.1989 and landlord got service on 4.11.1990–Therefore, on the day when eviction application u/s 15 of Ordinance 1979 was filed, landlord was not in service–It is a case where landlord has concealed a material fact which has misled tenant to frame his defence, it does not. amount to fraud or misrepresentation–Held : Case remanded to trial court for giving opportunity to parties to lead fresh evidence. PLJ 1997 Karachi 977
This site is protected by wp-copyrightpro.com
Translate »Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.