1989 PLP 4739 (MLD)
INTIZAMUDDIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM CHOWMAN, and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 4739 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Abdul Rasul Agha, JJ, |
| Parties | INTIZAMUDDIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM CHOWMAN, and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises. Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 4739 (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 1989 PLP 4739 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Abdul Rasul Agha, JJ,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 4739 (MLD) (INTIZAMUDDIN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM CHOWMAN, and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.15(2)(ii) & 16(1)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199--Tentative rent order--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Landlord filing ejectment application against tenant on ground of default in payment of rent and filed application for tentative rent order-Rent Controller after holding preliminary enquiry found some discrepancy in sale-decd of premises in dispute executed in favour of landlord and dismissed application for tentative rent order with observation that landlord may repeat application for his tentative rent order after recording evidence in the case for ejectment--Observations of Rent Controller, held, could not be made basis for invocation of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court on the ill based apprehension that such observations would prejudice landlord at trial of his eviction application.
Judgment & Decree
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J--The above noted two petitions are filed by the landlord against the order of Rent Controller dated 16-3-1989 passed in two rent cases instituted by the petitioner against his tenants. The petitioner had filed cases for eviction of the respondents in the above cases, on the ground of default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the above rent cases. The petitioner moved application under section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for a direction to tenant to deposit the monthly rent in Court as well as arrears during the pendency of the cases. The Rent Controller after holding preliminary enquiry found discrepancy in the number of premises occupied by the tenants and the one purchased by the landlord/petitioner. He accordingly dismissed the application under section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground that at this stage it is not clear that the petitioner has purchased the same property which is occupied by the tenants. The Rent Controller, however, observed that the landlord/petitioner may repeat his application after evidence is recorded in the cases. Mr. Muzaffarul Haq, learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the observation of the Rent Controller in the impugned orders that the ejectment case instituted by the petitioner in respect of the shop is not covered by the Sale Deed is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner as this observation is likely to prejudice the applicant/petitioner at the trial of the, application. We are unable to accept this contention. The observations made by the Rent Controller while dismissing the application under section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 are of a purely tentative nature and the Rent Controller has himself clarified that this point will be fully considered after the evidence is recorded in the case. In these circumstances, we are of the view that a final decision on the question whether the premises occupied by the respondents in the case is covered by the Sale Deed produced by the petitioner is yet to be given by the Rent Controller after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties and recording evidence in the case. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in our view is not well founded. Consequently the petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T/I-92/K Petition dismissed.