1987 PLP 223(1) (MLD)
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Appellant Versus SIDDIQ AHMAD KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 223(1) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ibadat Yar Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Appellant Versus SIDDIQ AHMAD KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 223(1) (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 1987 PLP 223(1) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ibadat Yar Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 223(1) (MLD) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ — Appellant Versus SIDDIQ AHMAD KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Hussain for Appellant.
- S.H. Fani for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.14(1) (proviso), 15 & 21(1)--Where landlord had let out a tenement which had fallen vacant and was available to him, his case for ejectment of other tenement, held, was hit by proviso to S.14(1) of Ordinance XVII of 1979 and he could not take advantage of special provision of law viz, S.14(1) of Ordinance XVII of 1979--Landlord, however, could avail remedy available to him under S.15 of same Ordinance.
Judgment & Decree
Ss.14(1) (proviso), 15 & 21(1)--Where landlord had let out a tenement which had fallen vacant and was available to him, his case for ejectment of other tenement, held, was hit by proviso to S.14(1) of Ordinance XVII of 1979 and he could not take advantage of special provision of law viz, S.14(1) of Ordinance XVII of 1979--Landlord, however, could avail remedy available to him under S.15 of same Ordinance. Asghar Hussain for Appellant. S.H. Fani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1987. Mr. Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant has read the order of the learned Rent Controller with me. In view of the newly added proviso to section 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance this appeal has no merit and is to be dismissed. The newly added proviso runs as under:- "Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply where the landlord has rented out the building after he has retired or attained the age of sixty years or as the case may be, has become widow or orphan."
2. It is admitted position in the case that one of the four tenements in the building had fallen vacant and was available to the landlord which the landlord has let out. This case is, therefore, hit by this proviso. The appellant, therefore, cannot take an advantage of this special provision of law namely section 14(1). Appellant has a remedy under section 15 if he so chooses. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T. M-36/K Appeal dismissed.