1989 PLP 548 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Appellant Versus Soofi MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 548 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim,J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Appellant Versus Soofi MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 548 (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 548 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim,J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 548 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Appellant Versus Soofi MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Firdous Ali for Appellant.
- Gul Zaman for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 2(f)(j), 15(2)(vii) & 18‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Personal bona fide requirement‑‑Proof‑‑Provisions of S. 18 of Ordinance only deal with intimation to tenant about change of ownership of premises so that tenant should be aware not to commit default in payment of rent to new owner, while personal bona fide requirement is an independent ground for ejectment of tenant‑ Landlord alleging to be new owner although had sent notice to tenant for change of ownership, but failed to furnish particulars of his family members and other details to prove his personal bona fide requirement‑‑Order ejecting tenant on ground of personal bona ride requirement, passed by Court below was set aside, and case remanded will direction to proceed afresh.
Judgment & Decree
Gul Zaman for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th December, 1988. Soofi Muhammad Bashir filed an application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against Muhammad Ramzan in the Court of Ist Senior Civil Judge (West) Karachi. The grounds taken in the rent case were that notice under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was sent about the change of ownership in the name of Soofi Muhammad Bashir and he demanded the vacant possession of the premises for his personal use. The appellant denied the relationship and stated in the written statement that Mst. Zubaida is the landlady. He replied to the notice sent by Soofi Muhammad Bashir.
2. The Rent Controller framed two issues and came to the conclusion that appcIJant has committed default and respondent has proved the case on personal bona fide requirement and he allowed the rent application.
3. I have heard Mr. Firdous Ali, Advocate for the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel that when the relationship was disputed, it was incumbent upon the Rent Controllcr to have framed this preliminary issue before going into the merits of the case. It is argued that there was a dispute between the appellant was depositing the rent in Misc: Rent Case. Mr. Gul Zaman Khan, appearing for the respondent, argued that property in question has been purchased by Soofi Muhammad Bashir and appellant cannot challenge the ownership. He has not been able to produce the final sale‑deed. He submits that the case may be remanded to the Rent Controller to give him a chance to produce these documents. To this request Mr. Firdous Ali has no objection.
4. The important points in this rent case are, whether the respondent was the owner at the time when notice under section 18 was sent to him and in view of this notice the respondent was entitled to have the possession as an owner of the property. It may be mentioned that section 18 only deals about the intimation to the tenant about the change of the ownership so that he should be aware so that he may not continue default. The personal bona fide requirement is an independent ground for the ejectment and on this ground the respondent has not furnished the particulars of his family members and other details. For the reasons stated above, the order of the Rent Controller dated 31st March, 1987 is set aside and he is directed to proceed with this case afresh. H.B.T./M‑704/K Appeal allowed/order accordingly.