1985 PLP 1077 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD IDREES KHAN — Appellant Versus Mst. FEROZA KHANUM — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1077 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IDREES KHAN — Appellant Versus Mst. FEROZA KHANUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1077 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1077 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1077 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD IDREES KHAN — Appellant Versus Mst. FEROZA KHANUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Amir Naqvi for Appellant.
- Masood Hayat Khan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing. 12th August, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 21--Eviction--Appeal issue of default in payment of rent and personal requirement establishment against tenant--Tenant pleading that husband of landlady entered into an agreement to sell demised premises to him for a consideration and a suit for specific performance of contract was pending in Civil Court--Counsel for both parties agreeing to disposal of appeal in terms of consent order to the effect that order of Rent Controller ejecting tenant would be maintained but ejectment decree would be executed only after final determination of suit and till then tenant would continue to pay monthly rent in Court and in case of default for two consecutive months landlord would be free to execute ejectment decree--Order accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
This rent appeal under section 22 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the tenant against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in a case instituted by the respondent against the appellant on grounds of default and personal requirement. The admitted position in the case is that the appellant was initially inducted as tenant in premises in dispute on monthly rent of Rs.150 by the respondent, However, when the Rent Application was filed against him, he took the plea that husband of t::- landlady allegedly entered into an agreement of sale with him to sell the property in his occupation for a consideration of Rs.30,00D and accordingly it was contended before the learned Rent Controller that we was not liable to pay any rent to the respondent for the disputed period. In this back ground the Rent Controller alongwith issues of default and personal requirement also framed an issue with regard to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This issue was decided in the affirmative and as there was no denial to the fact that the appellant has not paid any rent since June, 1975, the Controller ordered eviction of appellant both on the ground of default and personal requirement.[ It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned, Rent Controller should not have passed any order against the appellant' as the appellant had already instituted a Civil Suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale against respondent and her husband in which at one stage a decree was also passed against them. It is however not disputed that the decree passed in the Civil Suit in favour of appellant has since been set aside and the matter is presently pending before the Civil Court. After I heard the learned counsel for the parties in this background at length, they agreed to the disposal of this appeal in terms of the following consent order: "The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs and the order of the learned Rent Controller is maintained. The ejectment decree passed by the Rent Controller shall however be executed only after final determination of the Suit No. 3157 of 1979 in case the Civil Suit is decided against the appellant. It is further agreed that until decision of the above suit by the Civil Court the appellant/ tenant shall continue to deposit monthly rent in Court as directed by this Court which may be withdrawn by the respondent. In case the appellant commits default in deposit of rent for two consecutive months, the respondent will be free to execute the ejectment decree forthwith. The learned counsel for the parties jointly request that the Civil Suit was instituted in the year 1979 which is still pending. I have no doubt that as soon as the copy of this order is filed before B the learned Civil Judge who is seized of the matter, he will make every effort to dispose of the Civil Suit as expeditiously as possible. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.