1998 PLP 989 (CLC)
ADAM LIMITED, KARACHI‑‑‑Appellant Versus ARIF‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 989 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | M. L. Shahani, J |
| Parties | ADAM LIMITED, KARACHI‑‑‑Appellant Versus ARIF‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 989 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 989 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: M. L. Shahani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 989 (CLC) (ADAM LIMITED, KARACHI‑‑‑Appellant Versus ARIF‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shamim Ahmed Khan for Appellant.
- Rehanul Hassan Farooqui for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 26th March, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 15(2)(ii) & (vii)‑‑‑Bona fide personal need of landlord‑‑‑Order of ejectment ‑‑‑Sustainability‑‑‑Tenant had assailed ejectment order passed against him on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need of landlord contending that examinations‑in‑chief of parties through their affidavits‑in‑evidence, were signed before Oath Commissioner‑‑‑Normally, the affidavits for immediate use in Court were to be sworn in either in the Court or before the officer authorised by Court to administer oath ‑‑‑Deposition/cross-examination was recorded without administration of oath and parties were not recalled nor re‑affirmed‑‑‑Evidence having not been legally recorded, Appellate Court had rightly remanded case to Trial Court for recording legal evidence with the direction that Trial Court should record evidence and pass appropriate order.
Judgment & Decree
This Rent Appeal has been filed by the tenant. The landlord/respondent sought ejectment of tenant/appellant on the grounds of default and personal bona fide need. The appellant resisted both these grounds in the written‑statement. The learned Rent Controller on both grounds allowed the rent application, hence this appeal. Mr. Abul Inam, Advocate for the appellant assailed the impugned order stating that the order is not sustainable on evidence. While going through the evidence the record reveals that the examination‑in‑chief of the parties through their affidavit‑in‑evidence were signed before Oath Commissioner. Normally, the affidavits for immediate use in Court are to be sworn in either in the Court or before the officer authorised by Court to administer oath. The deposition/ cross‑examination was recorded without administration of Oath. The record reveals that the parties were not recalled nor re‑affirmed, as such legal evidence was not recorded. Since on the face of record evidence is not legally recorded, there is no other course available with me but to remand the case to the Trial Court for recording proper legal evidence and thereafter, base the findings on such legally recorded findings. Since this rent case was filed in 1988 the Trial Court is directed to record the evidence and pass the appropriate orders within six months. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 14‑4‑1997. Office is also directed to return the R & P as soon as possible. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since the order is passed on the legal grounds, therefore, there will be no order as to costs. A.A./A‑166/K Appeal allowed.