PLJ 2013 SC 13
[Appellate Jurisdiction]
[Appellate Jurisdiction]
Present: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, JJ.
IMRAN LATIF and
another--Petitioners
Versus
MUHAMMAD SAIM
JALIL and others--Respondents
Civil Petitions
No. 1234 & 1026 of 2012, decided on 20.9.2012.
(On appeal from
the judgment dated 07.03.2012 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench
in FAO 66 & 67/2008).
Constitution of Pakistan ,
1973--
----Art.
185(3)--Leave to Appeal--Relationship of landlord and tenant--Power to ejectment order--Validity--Contention--Where relationship
of landlord and tenant was denied Rent Controller had power to order ejectment of tenant but no provision of Cantonment Rent
Restriction Act, 1963 empowers Rent Controller or any other Court in hierarchy
to pass the order--Appeal was allowed. [P.
13] A
Sh. Khawar, ASC for Petitioners (in both cases).
Mr. Sanaullah Zahid, ASC for
Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 1234 of 2012).
Mr. Nazir Ahmed Bhutta, ASC for
Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 1026 of 2012).
Date of hearing:
20.09.2012
Order
Ejaz Afzal Khan, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has
arisen out of the judgment dated 07.03.2012 of the Lahore High Court,
Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby the learned Judge in its Chambers
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by observing as under:
"8. For the
reasons supra, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity. The appeal being devoid of force is hereby dismissed. However, the
appellant is given a period of two months from today for vacation of the rented
premises subject to payment of rent from August, 2001 till vacation at the rate
of Rs.5,000/- per month."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner contended that where relationship of landlord and tenant is denied
the Rent Controller has the power to order ejectment
of the tenant but no provision of
the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 empowers the Rent
Controller or any other Court in the hierarchy to pass the order mentioned
above.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent contended that where there has not been any dispute about the
quantum of rent and the arrears thereof, the Rent Controller or for that matter
any other Court in the hierarchy could pass an order directing the respondent
to pay rent or its arrears.
4. We have gone through the record and
considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We have
also read most of the provisions of the Act to find the one empowering the
learned Rent Controller or any other Court in the hierarchy to pass the order
mentioned above, but we could not find any. Nor could the learned counsel for the respondent advert to a
provision or case law in this behalf. When this being the case we convert
these petitions into appeals, allow CMAs for condonation
of delay and partly allow the appeals by modifying the impugned judgments only
to the extent of payment of rent from August, 2001 till vacation of the
premises. However, none of the observations made above would debar the
respondent from claiming arrears under the law from the appellants.
(R.A.) Appeal allowed
No comments:
Post a Comment