P L D 2014 Supreme Court 347 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NISAR — Appellant Versus IZHAR AHMED SHAIKH and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2014 Supreme Court 347 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NISAR — Appellant Versus IZHAR AHMED SHAIKH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2014 Supreme Court 347 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2014 Supreme Court 347 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2014 Supreme Court 347 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NISAR — Appellant Versus IZHAR AHMED SHAIKH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. A. Rasheed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Khaleeq Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
- 3. Ch. Abdul Rasheed, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the appellant has submitted that all the learned lower forums below have fallen into error while holding that the appellant was a tenant of the premises in question since per the agreement to sell between the appellant and respondent No.1's father viz. Jamaluddin dated 30-11-2004 the appellant has been put into possession on the same date. Consequently there could not be any relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent No.1 who is one of the legal heirs of late Jamaluddin.
- 4. To this submission Mr.Khaleeq Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that before the learned Rent Controller the petitioner had admitted in his Written Statement that the premises were rented to Nabi Bux Khilji Pathan who was the father of the petitioner and consequently after the demise of said Nabi Bux the tenancy devolved on his legal heirs including the appellant. Hence it cannot be said that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Consequently the learned lower forums have correctly held that there is such relationship and admittedly the appellant was a defaulter as he had not paid rent to the respondent No.1 who had purchased the property from his father and hence he was liable for ejection. In support of his submissions learned Advocate Supreme Court has relied upon Shameem Akhtar v. Muhammad Rashid (PLD 1989 SC 575), Mst. Azeeman Nisar Begum v. Mst. Rabia Bibi (PLD 1991 SC 242), Muhammad Rafiq v. Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. (1994 SCMR 1012) and Mst. Bore Bibi v. Abdul Qadir (1996 SCMR 877).
- 5. We have heard both the learned Advocate Supreme Court and perused the record along with their assistance.
- 6. It would be seen that in the affidavit in evidence filed by the appellant before the learned Rent Controller, the father of the appellant viz. Nabi Bux was stated to be the tenant of the father of respondent No.1. In para-8 therefore it has been particularly averred that after the demise of Nabi Bux the premises were in the possession of his family members other than the appellant when it was purchased by him. In our opinion such averment cannot displace the law itself since per section 2(j) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 each legal heir of the tenant after his demise becomes a tenant and consequently the learned lower forums below have correctly held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Per settled law in such circumstances when the tenant puts up a plea in an ejectment application that he had purchased the property then he has to file a suit for his remedies (which has already been done) and vacate the premises and thereafter if he succeeds he would be entitled to take possession of the premises again. In this regard reference can be made to the cases cited at the bar by the learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 2(j)
Devolution of tenancy onto legal heirs of tenant
Scope
Under S.2(j) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 each legal heir of the tenant after his demise became a tenant.
S. 2(j)
Devolution of tenancy onto legal heirs of tenant
Scope
Landlord filed rent application against son of deceased-tenant/appellant on the ground of default of payment of rent
Son of deceased tenant claimed that he had purchased the rented premises from the landlord through an agreement to sell after the death of his tenant-father; that after demise of his tenant-father, he was not in possession of the premises but his family members were
Such contention could not displace the law under S.2(j) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which stated that each legal heir of the tenant after his demise became a tenant, therefore relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties
When son of deceased-tenant put up a plea in the rent application that he had purchased the property then he had to file a suit for his remedies and vacate the premises and thereafter if he succeeded, he would be entitled to take possession of the premises again
Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
S. 15
Application for eviction of tenant
Tenant taking the plea that he had purchased the rented property from the landlord through an agreement to sell
Procedure to be followed by the tenant to take possession of such property
When the tenant put up a plea in an ejectment application that he had purchased the property then he had to file a suit for his remedies and vacate the premises and thereafter if he succeeded, he would be entitled to take possession of the premises again.
Judgment & Decree
SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.
This Appeal, by leave of the Court, impugns the judgment of the learned Sindh High Court in Constitution Petition No.S-2406 of 2010 filed by the appellant whereby same was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that one Jamaluddin, father of the respondent No.1 was the owner of the demised premises which were allegedly purchased by the petitioner in 2004. Since the sale transaction had not been completed the appellant had filed a Civil Suit for specific performance etc. of said agreement to sell which is still pending before the concerned Senior Civil Judge. In the meanwhile the respondent No.1 filed a rent application against the petitioner on the ground of default before the concerned Rent Controller which was allowed. The Rent Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and as stated above so also the Constitution Petition.
3. Ch. Abdul Rasheed, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the appellant has submitted that all the learned lower forums below have fallen into error while holding that the appellant was a tenant of the premises in question since per the agreement to sell between the appellant and respondent No.1's father viz. Jamaluddin dated 30-11-2004 the appellant has been put into possession on the same date. Consequently there could not be any relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent No.1 who is one of the legal heirs of late Jamaluddin.
4. To this submission Mr.Khaleeq Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that before the learned Rent Controller the petitioner had admitted in his Written Statement that the premises were rented to Nabi Bux Khilji Pathan who was the father of the petitioner and consequently after the demise of said Nabi Bux the tenancy devolved on his legal heirs including the appellant. Hence it cannot be said that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Consequently the learned lower forums have correctly held that there is such relationship and admittedly the appellant was a defaulter as he had not paid rent to the respondent No.1 who had purchased the property from his father and hence he was liable for ejection. In support of his submissions learned Advocate Supreme Court has relied upon Shameem Akhtar v. Muhammad Rashid (PLD 1989 SC 575), Mst. Azeeman Nisar Begum v. Mst. Rabia Bibi (PLD 1991 SC 242), Muhammad Rafiq v. Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. (1994 SCMR 1012) and Mst. Bore Bibi v. Abdul Qadir (1996 SCMR 877).
5. We have heard both the learned Advocate Supreme Court and perused the record along with their assistance.
6. It would be seen that in the affidavit in evidence filed by the appellant before the learned Rent Controller, the father of the appellant viz. Nabi Bux was stated to be the tenant of the father of respondent No.1. In para-8 therefore it has been particularly averred that after the demise of Nabi Bux the premises were in the possession of his family members other than the appellant when it was purchased by him. In our opinion such averment cannot displace the law itself since per section 2(j) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 each legal heir of the tenant after his demise becomes a tenant and consequently the learned lower forums below have correctly held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Per settled law in such circumstances when the tenant puts up a plea in an ejectment application that he had purchased the property then he has to file a suit for his remedies (which has already been done) and vacate the premises and thereafter if he succeeds he would be entitled to take possession of the premises again. In this regard reference can be made to the cases cited at the bar by the learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the respondents.
7. Consequently we do not find any force in this appeal and hence would not like to interfere in the concurrent findings of the learned lower forums below. The same is accordingly dismissed. MWA/M-58/SC Appeal dismissed.