| Case ID |
fffa4ed8-f1c4-49a1-a83a-aacba70fd6ec |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 504 |
| Decision Date |
Aug 11, 1981 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the striking off of the tenant's defence under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Court held that the tenant had been given sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations against him and that the Rent Controller had acted within his lawful authority. The Court emphasized that while tenants are entitled to an opportunity to show cause before their defence is struck off, this does not necessitate a full trial. The principles of natural justice were deemed satisfied when the tenant and/or his counsel were made aware of the proceedings. The Court found that the tenant's claim of being misled by his counsel did not warrant interference with the Rent Controller's decision. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the application of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, specifically section 13(6), which pertains to the striking off of a tenant's defence in eviction proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the necessity of providing tenants with a fair opportunity to present their case before their defence is dismissed. The ruling clarified that the requirement for natural justice can be met by ensuring that the tenant is informed of the proceedings and has the chance to respond, without the need for a full trial process. The case underscores the balance between expediting eviction processes and safeguarding tenants' rights, emphasizing that any claims of misunderstanding by the tenant regarding legal orders must be substantiated. This ruling is significant for landlords and tenants alike, as it sets a precedent for how such cases are handled in the future, ensuring that tenants are not unjustly deprived of their defence due to procedural oversights. The decision also highlights the role and responsibilities of legal counsel in advising their clients effectively during these critical proceedings. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH,
NASIM HASAN SHAH
|
| Lawyers |
Shahid Hussain Qadri,
Muhammad Aslam Chaudhary
|
| Petitioners |
Haji FAZAL KARIM
|
| Respondents |
others,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE
|
| Citations |
1982 SLD 744,
1982 PLD 306
|
| Other Citations |
Din Muhammad and another v. Umar Hayat and others 1981 S C M R 326,
Municipal Committee, Gujranwala v. Barkat 'Bibi and five others 1979 S C M R 264,
Ghulam Muhammad Khan Lundkhor v. Safdar Ali P L D 1967 S C 530 at 537
|
| Laws Involved |
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
|
| Sections |
13(6)
|