1989 PLP 3635 (MLD)
IQBAL-Appellant Versus RAHIM SHAH — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 3635 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Razak A. Thahim, J |
| Parties | IQBAL-Appellant Versus RAHIM SHAH — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 3635 (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 3635 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Razak A. Thahim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 3635 (MLD) (IQBAL-Appellant Versus RAHIM SHAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ismail Padhiar for Appellant.
- Mirza A. Rashid for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th January, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.15 & 18--Relationship of landlord and tenant--Dispute in payment of rent- Tenant disputing his relationship of being tenant of landlord on ground that his father had entered into an agreement of sale of property in dispute--Landlord also claimed that he had purchased property in question--Documentary evidence existing to the effect that landlord had purchased property and had given notice to tenant but latter had not paid rent after notice and was holding the property- Order of ejectment of tenant was maintained in circumstances. P L D 1985 S C 1 and 1985 S C M R 1584 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Rahim Shah filed rent case No.3783/80 against Iqbal on the ground of default. The Rent Controller by an order dated 6-3-1983 allowed the rent application and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession to the respondent within 2 months of the order.
2. I have heard Mr.1smail Padhiar, for the appellant. It is argued that respondent Iqbal was tenant of previous owner Budha Soomar in respect of premises No.11 and tenancy was in favour of his father, who purchased the property from Budha Soomar by way of agreement to sale. Mr. Mirza Abdul Rashid, Advocate, argued that the rent case No.3782/80 was filed against Kassim Arab on the same ground in which, it was stated that Syed Rahim Shah purchased the property by registered sale deed from Budha Soomar. He referred to PLD 1985 SC 1 and 1985 SCMR 1584. The dispute in this case is that Kassim Arab, father of appellant Iqbal, stated to have entered into an agreement to sale on 4-7-1980 with Budha Soomar, therefore, his father is a landlord and application is not maintainable. On the other hand the case of respondent is that he purchased the property from Budha Soomar and in his evidence he stated that notice under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was given to appellant. He produced the documents such as copy of the sale deed and notice. Before the Rent Controller, appellant Iqbal filed affidavit-in-evidence and stated that he had never been the tenant of previous owner Budha Soomar and there exists no relationship. He has stated that the father was the tenant and tenancy extinguished on agreement of tenancy dated 4-7-1978. There is a documentary evidence that respondent purchased the property. He gave notice to the appellant. The Rent Controller has discussed all the documents produced by the respondent. The appellant has not produced any document in support of his case. The appellant in cross-examination also admitted that he is residing in Budha Soomar Compound since last 18-19 years and his father was paying the rent. He has admitted that he received the information in writing from the respondent and he has not paid the rent till the service of this notice.
3. From the evidence, it is clear that respondent has got the right to receive the rent accordingly to section 2 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Rent Controller has rightly decided the issue of relationship between the parties in favour of respondent. It is admitted fact that rent has not been paid after the notice and he is holding possession. The appeal, having no force, is dismissed. M.Y.H./I-82/K Appeal dismissed.