1992 PLP 91 (CLC)
Mrs. FARIDA‑‑‑Plaintiff‑Petitioner Versus MOHSIN TAYYABALI and others‑‑‑Defendants‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 91 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar, J |
| Parties | Mrs. FARIDA‑‑‑Plaintiff‑Petitioner Versus MOHSIN TAYYABALI and others‑‑‑Defendants‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Landlord and tenant‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 91 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Landlord and tenant‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 91 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 91 (CLC) (Mrs. FARIDA‑‑‑Plaintiff‑Petitioner Versus MOHSIN TAYYABALI and others‑‑‑Defendants‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mr. Shaffat and Sajjad E. Halai for Petitioners.
- Ghulam Muhammad Ebrahim and Salim Karamally for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Application for change of tenancy during pendency of suit‑‑‑Amount of rent and consideration paid by tenant seemed to be reasonable‑‑‑Application for change of tenancy during pendency of suit was allowed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Miscellaneous Application No.6815 of 1986 in Suit No. 623 of 1981, decided on 22nd January, 1987. ‑‑‑‑ Application for change of tenancy during pendency of suit‑‑‑Amount of rent and consideration paid by tenant seemed to be reasonable‑‑‑Application for change of tenancy during pendency of suit was allowed in circumstances. Mr. Shaffat and Sajjad E. Halai for Petitioners. Ghulam Muhammad Ebrahim and Salim Karamally for Respondents. Thus is an application seeking permission that the defendant No.6 be allowed to change the tenancy in respect of goodown No.W.0.6/28 of which Fida Hussain is the tenant. It seems that the defendants have brought about this transaction for transfer of tenancy. The outgoing tenant seems to have accepted curtain consideration for vacating the premises and paying part of the amount to the landlord on condition that Juma Shah the new tenant shall be indebted in the premises. Although in the application and in the affidavit the amount has not been mentioned Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Ebrahim Advocate stated at the bar that the tenant is willing to pay Rs.2,55,000_and the new tenant will pay rent of Rs.400 instead of Rs.150. The plaintiff has filed counter affidavit stating that the rent of the premises is Rs.1000 to 1500 and Rs. ten lacs can be obtained for change of receipt and a considerable percentage of this amount is to be paid to the landlord. He has not mentioned the percentage. On query Mr. Sajad Halai Advocate stated that it would be between 40% to 50%. Mr. Saleem Karamally Advocate for defendant No.5 has not filed counter‑affidavit but has orally stated that the tenants usually pay 50% to the landlord. As no counter‑affidavit has been filed I am not inclined to accept his statement. On the last hearing chance was given to both the parties to bring better offer but the plaintiff and the defendant No.5 have expressed their inability to procure any better offer due to the prevailing conditions. If we take statement made by defendant No.5 in his counter‑affidavit as a basis it seems that the amount of rent and the consideration paid by the tenant seem to be reasonable. In these circumstances the application is allowed and the defendant No.3 shall account for all the benefits accruing from the change of tenancy. AA./F‑175/K Application allowed.