CLC 2008

2008 PLP 1629 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD GHAZI QURESHI — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD MUDASIR — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
2008-March-12
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 1629 (CLC)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD GHAZI QURESHI — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD MUDASIR — Respondent
Primary Law Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1629 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1629 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1629 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD GHAZI QURESHI — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD MUDASIR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)

Representation

  • Iftikhar Javaid Qazi for Respondent.
  • Ms. Shahida Nasreen, Advocate for appellant, has argued that the learned Additional Controller of Rents has not appreciated the evidence and has given one sided finding on the issues framed by him in this case. She states that there is only month's default in payment of rent and as far as other three issues are concerned, those have not been proved. She has drawn attention of this Court towards the report of the Commissioner who has reported nothing about the nuisance but only stated about the grinding machine, polishing of the marbles and there is no marble cutting in the tenement.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 17(2)(1) & 24

Ejectment of tenant

Default in payment of rent

Tenement in question was situated at a commercial place and criminal litigation was also initiated by landlord against the tenant

Only one month's default in payment of rent was alleged against the tenant

Tenement was a business place and it would be in the fitness of things, if the tenant enjoyed peaceful possession of the property so that he could promote his business

Tenant and landlord both were young men and appeared to be educated

Appellate Court had given them a suggestion that court would grant sufficient time to the tenant to vacate the premises, to which the landlord as well as the tenant had agreed

By consent, it was ordered by High Court that tenant would handover vacant, peaceful physical possession of the premises to the landlord after expiry of two years; in case of failure of tenant to hand over the vacant, peaceful physical possession of tenement to the landlord, after expiry of said two years, Rent Controller would issue a writ of possession without notice with police aid and order of breaking open the locks.

Judgment & Decree

KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.

Appellant has filed this First Rent Appeal against the order dated 10-1-2007 passed by the learned Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi, in Rent Case No.58 of 2002. Ms. Shahida Nasreen, Advocate for appellant, has argued that the learned Additional Controller of Rents has not appreciated the evidence and has given one sided finding on the issues framed by him in this case. She states that there is only month's default in payment of rent and as far as other three issues are concerned, those have not been proved. She has drawn attention of this Court towards the report of the Commissioner who has reported nothing about the nuisance but only stated about the grinding machine, polishing of the marbles and there is no marble cutting in the tenement. Mr. Iftikhar Javaid Qazi, learned counsel for the respondent, has stated that the order of the Additional Controller of Rents is strictly in accordance with law and there is no lacuna in the order, which calls for interference by this Court. He submitted that the appellants' counsel herself has admitted that there is default of one month in payment of rent. He, however, stated that the default in payment of rent was of two months. The learned counsel further submitted that there are reported cases of the superior Courts where default of even 2/3 days in payment of rent was not condoned and ejectment orders were maintained. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The tenement in question is a commercial place and during arguments it transpired that criminal litigation was also initiated by the landlord/respondent against the tenant/appellant. The tenement is a business place and it will be in the fitness of the things if the tenant enjoys peaceful possession of the property so that he can promote his business. The tenant/appellant and landlord/respondent both are present in Court. They are young men and appear to be educated. The Court has given them a suggestion that Court will grant sufficient time to the appellant to vacate the premises to which the landlord as well as the tenant is agreed. By consent, it is ordered that the appellant shall hand over vacant, peaceful physical possession of the Ground Floor, Hall, 106-C, Khayaban-e-Ittehad Phase-II Extension, Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, to the landlord after expiry of two years from today. In case of his failure to hand over the vacant, peaceful physical possession of the tenement to the landlord after expiry of two years from today, the Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi will issue writ of possession without notice with police aid and order of breaking open the locks. This order is subject to payment of monthly rent as well as the utility bills. In case of default in payment of monthly rent or utility bills, the order will become operational from the date of default. The F.R.A. along with the listed application is disposed of in above terms. H.B.T./M-111/L Order accordingly.