1990 PLP 850 (SCMR)
ROSHAN DIN‑‑‑Petitioner‑ Versus MASOOD PERVEZ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 850 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | ROSHAN DIN‑‑‑Petitioner‑ Versus MASOOD PERVEZ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 850 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 850 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. Usman Ali Shah and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 850 (SCMR) (ROSHAN DIN‑‑‑Petitioner‑ Versus MASOOD PERVEZ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Yunus Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 6th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order dated 13‑9‑1989 of the Peshawar High Court, in FA.O. No. 4 of 1989). ‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Vendee from original landlord filing application for ejectment of tenant‑‑‑Tenant set up the plea that he was not in possession of premises but his son was who had purchased the premises from the original landlord and was occupying the premises not as a tenant but under the agreement of sale; that his son had instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell which was pending adjudication; that vendor had also admitted having received earnest money and that his son having purchased the premises was a necessary party; that Rent Controller had erred in dismissing his application for being impleaded in the ejectment application; and that no notice of the transfer of premises in favour of vendee was received by the tenant‑‑Contentions raised on behalf of tenant required examination‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted. Nemo for the Respondent.'
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for the Respondent.' Date of hearing: 6th February, 1990. ABDUL OADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 13‑9‑1989 of the Peshawar High Court.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 20‑11‑1985, respondent Masood Pervez brought an application for the ejectment of Roshan Din from the shop in question in the Court of Rent Controller, Peshawar. It was alleged that Roshan Din was tenant under Mst. Perveen Akhtar on monthly rent of Rs.150. She sold the shop in favour of Masood Pervez respondent through the registered sale‑deed on 11‑7‑1985. An eviction order was sought on the grounds of default in the payment of rent and that of personal requirement. Roshan Din contested the eviction application. He admitted the possession of the shop under Mst. Perveen Akhtar. It was stated that she had executed an agreement of sale on 11‑8‑1983 in favour of his son, namely, Muhammad Ishaque who had paid Rs.20,000 as earnest money and thereafter in the month of September, 1983 paid Rs.80,000 in two different instalments. Mst. Perveen Akhtar got possession of the shop from him and handed it over to his son. He denied to be in possession of the shop and his liability to pay rent of the defaulting period. Muhammad Ishaque also submitted an application for impleading him as a party to the ejectment proceedings but it was rejected by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller determined the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that Roshan Din had defaulted in payment of rent of the shop. As such an order of ejectment was passed against Roshan Din. Roshan Din challenged this order before the High Court in appeal. The learned High Court dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Muhammad Ishaque had instituted a suit for specific performance of the said sale agreement in the Civil Court which was pending for decision of title of suit shop. Mst. Perveen Akhtar had admitted that there was an agreement of sale with Muhammad Ishaque and she had received Rs.20,000 as earnest money and that Muhammad Ishaque was a necessary party and that the Rent Controller had erred in dismissing the application. The petitioner was in possession of the suit shop not as a tenant but in his own right. It was further submitted that no notice of the transfer of the shop was received by the petitioner. He has referred to the statement of Liaqat Ali, postman who stated that addressee was not present, therefore, he returned the letter back to the respondent.
4. The contentions raised require examination. Leave is, therefore granted. Security Rs.2,
500. The eviction of the petitioner is stayed meanwhile. AA./R‑148/S Leave, granted.