1991 PLP 762 (SCMR)
NOORUDDIN — Petitioner Versus SIRAJUDDIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 762 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. |
| Parties | NOORUDDIN — Petitioner Versus SIRAJUDDIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 762 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 762 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 762 (SCMR) (NOORUDDIN — Petitioner Versus SIRAJUDDIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 1990.
- K.A. Wahab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 19-11-1989 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in First Rent Appeal No.134 of 1987).
Ss. 10(3) & 18
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Landlord purchasing property in question when petitioner was already a tenant under previous landlord
Effect of failure to give notice by new landlord and deposit of rent by tenant under provision of S.10(3), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
Tenant appeared to have gained some knowledge about purchase by landlord even during the time when transaction of sale took place
Leave to appeal was granted to examine, notwithstanding tenant's knowledge about said purchase; whether a formal notice under S.18, Sindh Rented Premises, 1979, was necessary; whether tenant by making deposits under S.10(3) of the Act did not remain liable to eviction any more, notwithstanding some technical defect in said deposits, and in this behalf it would also require serious examination; whether tenant had not parted with requisite amount of money with a desire to avoid eviction on ground of default, and if he did so, whether he was still liable to be evicted and whether discretion should not have been examined in his favour-- Other related questions raised in petition for leave to appeal would also require examination
Leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th January, 1990. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant; against the acceptance by the High Court, of rent appeal filed by the respondent /landlord; whereby the dismissal of application for ejectment of the petitioner was brought under challenge. The High Court has ordered petitioner's eviction on ground of default and has also held that notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was not necessary as the petitioner had knowledge of what he was required to be intimated through notice under section
18. The respondent purchased this shop in October, 1980. The petitioner was already a tenant under the previous landlord. The default period is from October, 1980 to July 1983. The main issues which remain to be resolved relate to: issuance of notice under section 18; in absence of any such notice, the knowledge of the petitioner almost contemporaneously, with the time of purchase by the respondent of the said purchase; and effect of the deposit of rent by the petitioner under section 10(3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as claimed by him in such manner as to leave no period of default. It appears correct that the petitioner had gained some knowledge about the purchase by the respondent even during the time when the said transaction took place. In these circumstances it will have to be examined, notwithstanding the same, a formal notice under section 18 was necessary. It would also have to be examined: whether, the petitioner by making the deposits under section 10(3), did not remain liable to eviction any more, notwithstanding some technical defect in the said deposits. In this behalf it would also require serious examination: whether, the petitioner had not parted with the requisite amount of money with a desire to avoid eviction on ground of default; and if he did so; whether he was still liable to be evicted and whether discretion should not have been exercised in his favour. These and other related questions raised in the petition for leave to appeal require examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal thereof. Status quo to be maintained. A.A./N‑280/S Leave granted