Abdul Qahar Vs Haji Taskeen Ahmad

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COTIRT PESHAWAR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

FAO No. 0-P/2023 with as. 52& 023

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing 11.12.2024

Anne llant (Abdul Qahar) By Mr. Muhammad Haroon Yousaftai, Adyocote.

Resnondent(s) (Haji Taskeen Ahmad & otbers) : By Mr. Iftikhar Ali, Advocate.

S. M. ATTIOUE SHAH . J.- Through the present appeal, appellant has expressed his grievance against the judgment and; order of the worthy Rent Conkoller, Nowshera Cantt. dated 23.11.2022, whereby, while accepting the application of the respondent, the right of defence of the appellant has been struck off with further directions to vacate the suit shops within 30 days and; hand over its peaceful possession to him.

2 Arguments heard and; available record gone through.

3 According to Section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, appellant was required to file the instant appeal within 30 days against impugned judgment and; order dated23.ll.2022, however, he has filed the same on20.11.2001, after lapse of 5l days, which is hopelessly At f [u$aia CS (sB) Shln

time barred. Though the appellant has moved an application for condonation of delay with the appeal but the same did not disclose any cogent, convincing and; reasonable cause to condone such delay. It is also settled principle of law that the party approaching the court of competent jurisdiction for redresssal of grievance beyond specified period of limitation is bound to explain each day's delay to the satisfaction of respective forum because a valuable right accrues to the other side, which is indeed not the case here. 2001 SCMR 1822 Ali Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others Vs.

Chief Settlement Commissioner and olhers and; PLD 2011 Supreme Court 174 Qaisar Mushtaq Ahmad Vs. Controller of Examinalions and others. In view thereof above, instant application for condonation of delay being unfounded is dismissed.

4 On merits too, appellant has no good case, as the available record reflects that respondentlandlord filed a petition before worthy Rent Controller, Nowshera for ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the suit shops bearing No.l, 2 & 3, situated at Ground Floor, Asia Plaza, Nowshera Cantt on the grounds of default in the payment of monthly rent and; bona fide personal need, which was contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing his written reply whereafter worthy Rent Controller directed the petitioner- tenant to deposit the outstanding rent amount w.e.f. August, 2021 to May, 2022 upto 10.06.2022 and; also directed to Altd ll!r!!i4 CS (SB) ,urice S M. Attiluc

deposit future tentative rent in the court before 5ft day of each month vide order dated 11.05.2022. However, the said order was not complied with by him, resulting in allowing the application of respondentJandlord through impugned judgment and; order dated23.ll.2022, whereby, the right of defence of the petitioner-tenant was struck off besides, he was also directed to handover the vacant possession of the suit shops to the respondent-landlord within 30 days.

5.Section 17 (8) of the Cantonment Reshiction Act, 1963 provides that whenever the tenant would be directed to pay the monthly rent before 5th day of each month, the tenant is required to comply with such direction. Penal clause i.e. Section 17 (9) has also been provided by the Legislature in the ibid Act, that in case of default in deposit of rent amount by the tenant, not only his defense shall be struck-off but possession of the rented premises shall also be ordered to be taken from him without conducting any further proceedings in the case. In view thereof, no reason exists to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller in the given circumstances of the case, which is otherwise perfect and; in accordance with law.

6.Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed being barred by time as well as on merits

Announced.

Dated: 11.12.2024.

JUDGE

Al6f Hurr.ir! CS (SB) Jonicc S. M. Anipc Shah