1998 PLP 1361 (SCMR)
BEACONHOUSE SCHOOL SYSTEM (Pvt.) LTD., KARACHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Special Assets Management Group, Karachi‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1361 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Fatal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | BEACONHOUSE SCHOOL SYSTEM (Pvt.) LTD., KARACHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Special Assets Management Group, Karachi‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVH of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1361 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVH of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1361 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Fatal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1361 (SCMR) (BEACONHOUSE SCHOOL SYSTEM (Pvt.) LTD., KARACHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Special Assets Management Group, Karachi‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court arid Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th April, 1996.
- Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court arid Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi dated 14‑9‑1995 passed in F.R.A. No.78 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent‑‑‑Contentions of tenants were that on question of default of rent their witness was not cross‑examined and further that tenants had no knowledge about the transfer of property to some other party till the issuance of notice from new owner, therefore, the payment made earlier to the receipt of notice to the previous landlord was a valid payment and no default was committed and that under S. 21, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, High Court ought to have admitted the additional documentary evidence from tenant side, which was of unimpeachable character‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was granted to consider the contentions. Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. M/s. Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. PLD 1971 SC 550 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber whereby the ejectment order passed by the learned Controller was affirmed in appeal.
2. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of Property bearing Nos.8/54 and 8/55 measuring 2000 square yards situated at Darul Aman Cooperative Housing Society, G.D. Qureshi Road, Karachi at a monthly rent of Rs.39,600, which was owned by Najamuzzaman and others. The tenancy agreement between them was for the period from 1-1-1990 to 31-12-2014. The respondent purchased the disputed premises in an auction held by the High Court of Sindh. The respondent served a notice dated 22-3-1993 requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises as it had defaulted in payment of rent from February 1993 to June 1993, that it was required for personal bona fide need of the respondent and that unauthorised alterations had been made. According to the petitioner, this notice was received on 17-4-1993 as held by the High Court. A reply was sent denying all the charges and stating that the rent for four months (February to June 1993) had been paid to the previous landlord before the service of notice. The respondent filed ejectment application on the aforestated grounds, which was resisted by the petitioner and all allegations and grounds for ejectment pleaded therein were denied. The learned Controller granted ejectment only on the ground of defualt in payment of rent. The petitioner filed First Rent Appeal in the High Court where the only question to be considered was in respect of default in payment of rent. The petitioner also filed an application under Order XLI rule 27, C.P.C. read with section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance seeking permission to file documents, namely, rent receipts dated 12-1-1993 and 12-4-1993, copy of the deposit receipt of the bank dated 15-4-1993 and copy of the statement of account of the previous owner issued by the Habib Bank Ltd. This application for producing additional evidence was dismissed and the learned Judge in Chamber held that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on question of default in payment of rent petitioner's witness was not cross-examined and further that the petitioner did not have the knowledge of transfer of the premises to the respondent till 22-3-1993 when notice was served by the respondent. Therefore, the payment made earlier to the receipt of notice to the previous landlord was a valid payment and no default was committed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance the learned Judge in Chamber ought to have admitted the additional documentary evidence, which was of unimpeachable character. Reliance has been placed on Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. M/s Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. (PLD 1971 SC 550). Leave is granted. The operation of the impugned judgment is stayed. M.B.A./B-11/S Leave granted.