2010 PLP 1788 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF through Attorney — Petitioner Versus Mrs. AZRA MUQEEM and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1788 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF through Attorney — Petitioner Versus Mrs. AZRA MUQEEM and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1788 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1788 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1788 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF through Attorney — Petitioner Versus Mrs. AZRA MUQEEM and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir-ur-Rehman for Petitioner.
- Khalid Dawoodpota for Respondents.
- ABDUL HADI KHOSO, J.---Mr. Munir-ur-Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner has filed this petition, challenging the impugned orders in Rent Case No. 445 of 2009 dated 28-9-2009 passed by the VIth Rent Controller, Karachi (Central) and Judgment dated 21-12-2009 in First Rent Appeal No. 168 of 2009 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi (Central). Since both the Courts below have passed impugned orders and there is concurrent findings in respect of Flat No.15/16 Third Floor, Faffaro Chambers, SD-28, Block-A, North Nazimabad, Karachi. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is statutory tenant and is in a legal and lawful possession of the said premises and he is paying the monthly rent before the Nazir of the VIth Rent Controller, Karachi (Central). In the prayer clause mainly he has prayed for setting aside the impugned orders dated 28-9-2009 and 21-12-2009 respectively, and he has also filed application being C.M.A No.524 of 2010, praying therein for suspension of the operation of the impugned orders..
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 15 & 21
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199, 23 & 24
Constitutional petition
Petitioner/tenant had impugned concurrent judgments of the Rent Controller and Appellate Court
Counsel for the petitioners had stated that petitioner was statutory tenant and was in a legal and lawful possession of premises and was paying monthly rent before the Nazir of the Rent Controller
Provisions of Arts.23 & 24 of the Constitution, had protected right of property
Right of ownership was superior than the right of tenancy
Petitioner/tenant was not satisfied with the concurrent findings of the courts below
If the petition was lingering on while the respondent/landlady , had suffered the agony of trial before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court and was being dragged in constitutional petition, it was harassment for the lady, if such petitions were allowed
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HADI KHOSO, J.
Mr. Munir-ur-Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner has filed this petition, challenging the impugned orders in Rent Case No. 445 of 2009 dated 28-9-2009 passed by the VIth Rent Controller, Karachi (Central) and Judgment dated 21-12-2009 in First Rent Appeal No. 168 of 2009 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi (Central). Since both the Courts below have passed impugned orders and there is concurrent findings in respect of Flat No.15/16 Third Floor, Faffaro Chambers, SD-28, Block-A, North Nazimabad, Karachi. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is statutory tenant and is in a legal and lawful possession of the said premises and he is paying the monthly rent before the Nazir of the VIth Rent Controller, Karachi (Central). In the prayer clause mainly he has prayed for setting aside the impugned orders dated 28-9-2009 and 21-12-2009 respectively, and he has also filed application being C.M.A No.524 of 2010, praying therein for suspension of the operation of the impugned orders.. I have heard both the learned counsel at length and drawn attention to the provisions of Article 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, in which right of property is protected, and I think that right of ownership is superior than the right of tenancy. I have also taken notice of the fact that the rent for a flat being paid @ 200 and the petitioner is not satisfying on the concurrent findings of the Courts below. I think if such petitions are lingering on while the respondent landlady has suffered the agony of trial before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court and now is being dragged in Constitutional Petition. So in my view it is harassment for the landlady, if such petitions are allowed. So, seeing no reason and justification in this petition, the same is dismissed. H.B.T./M-106/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.