2006 PLP 1187 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB THABO — Petitioner Versus VTH SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1187 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Azizullah M. Memon, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB THABO — Petitioner Versus VTH SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1187 (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 2006 PLP 1187 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Azizullah M. Memon, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1187 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB THABO — Petitioner Versus VTH SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Mubin for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 15
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Tenant filed his written statement and thereafter landlord filed affidavit-in-evidence and he was cross-examined by counsel for the tenant
Tenant, during proceedings filed an application before Rent Controller with a prayer to discard/reject affidavit-in-evidence and dismiss ejectment application along with his affidavit-in-evidence
Rent Controller dismissed the application of tenant
Tenant/petitioner again filed application with a prayer to direct landlord to file fresh affidavit in evidence in order to rectify mistake, omission committed by him in order to remove irregularity from the legal proceedings for decision of the case on merits
Said application of tenant/petitioner also was dismissed by Rent Controller
Petitioner/ tenant filed constitutional petition against said two orders.
Whenever a party would state to be unaware of the contents of affidavit filed in judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings, benefit of such defect could be awarded to other party but same was to be so awarded at the appropriate stage of such proceedings of the case
Was not necessary for the Rent Controller to throttle further proceedings of ejectment application at such a stage of the case
Landlords were to be afforded due opportunity to produce other evidence in support of ejectment case, strictly in accordance with relevant provisions of law
No prejudice was caused to petitioner by impugned order as his rights in the case were yet to be adjudicated upon by Rent Controller according to law. Date of haring: 7th April, 2006.
Judgment & Decree
AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.
This constitutional petition is directed by the petitioner Muhammad Yaqoob (who is tenant/opponent) in Rent Case bearing No.357 of 2004 pending before the 5th Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi, Central against the orders respectively dated 17-12-2005 and 9-3-2006. Heard Mr. Arshad Mubin, Advocate for the petitioner. Facts giving rise to filing of this constitutional petition are to the effect that respondent Muhammad Aslam and others filed the above Rent Case bearing No.357 of 2004 against the petitioner for his ejectment from the Shop.No.3 of the premises known as Waris Manzil situated on Plot No.W.S-14, Block-1, Federal "B" Area, Karachi; petitioner filed his written statement therein whereafter the respondent No.2 filed his affidavit-in-evidence and was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant wherein he is said to have stated that he had no knowledge of the contents of his affidavit-in-evidence and signed the same while sitting at his home or his shop, without making appearance before the competent officer of the Court of Rent Controller for such a purpose. He is further said to have stated in the cross-examination that he put his 'signature on memo. of ejectment application while sitting at his home; therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller with a prayer to "discard/reject affidavit-in-evidence of the applicant and dismiss the rent application along with his affidavit"; vide order dated 17-12-2005 learned Rent Controller dismissed the said application. Again, opponent/petitioner filed application under section 151, Civil Procedure Code in the said rent case with a prayer to direct the said applicant/respondent to file fresh affidavit-in-evidence therein "in order to rectify the mistake, omission committed by him in order to removal of irregularity to the legal proceedings to decide the case on merits, as the said proceedings of his evidence is at very initial stage"; the said application also stands dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order, dated 9-3-2006; hence, the tenant/petitioner has filed constitutional petition against the said two orders. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner having been duly considered, suffice it to say that whenever a party states to be unaware of the contents of his affidavit filed in the judicial/quasi judicial proceedings, benefit of such a defect may be awarded to the other party, but the same is to be so awarded at the appropriate stage of such proceedings of the case; it is not necessary for the Rent Controller to throttle further proceedings of the ejectment application at such a stage of the case; applicants/landlords are to be afforded with due opportunity to produce other evidence in support of the ejectment case, strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner by means of impugned orders and his rights in the case are yet to be adjudicated upon by the Rent Controller according to law. Hence, this constitutional petition does not carry any force which is hereby dismissed in limine together with the listed applications. H.B.T./M-68/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.