SADAQAT ALI vs Mst — 2025 SCMR 358 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SADAQAT ALI VS Mst. NASREEN AKHTAR S. 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Eviction of tenant---Default in payment of monthly rent---Unauthorized subletting of the property---Ex-parte order passed by Rent Controller not obtained by way of fraud or misrepresentation---Rent Controller attempted to serve notices upon the lesses and petitioners in the rent/eviction application through various modes, including by way of Bailiff, Registered Post A/D, T.C.S, pasting notice on the wall and gate of the property and finally through publication---Despite these efforts, the lessee and petitioners in the matter failed to appear---In view of the same, the Rent Controller decided that service was valid/good against the lessee and petitioners and after being afforded several chances to contest the case, the lessee and petitioners were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte, which was followed by an ex parte judgment, allowing the land lady's (respondent's) rent/eviction application---Validity---Rent Controller had attempted to issue notices to the petitioners through numerous modes, including by way of the Court Bailiff, Registered Post A/D, T.C.S, pasting notice on the wall and gate of the property and finally through publication---It was only after exhausting all the modes of service that the Rent Controller held service to be good against the petitioners---Despite notice, through all its modes and at the correct address, the petitioners had failed to enter appearance and absented themselves from proceedings in the eviction application---Order for ex parte proceedings and ex parte judgment that followed could not, therefore, be considered as a result of fraud or misrepresentation but of the willful absence of the petitioners---Furthermore, the fact that there had earlier been litigation concerning the property was not a valid ground for interference with the findings of the three Courts below---Moreover, the controversy highlighted by the petitioners that in an earlier rent/eviction application, the respondent's attorney had claimed to be owner whereas in the instant application he claimed to be the respondent's attorney would not improve their case since it would not change their status as unauthorized sub-lessees of the original lessee---No valid ground was found for interference with the orders of the three Courts below---Petition, being devoid of any merits, was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

SADAQAT ALI vs Mst — 2025 SCMR 358 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR