2020 PLP 1599 (CLC)
Haji MUHAMMAD ASHRAF QURESHI — Petitioner Versus NANKI BAI and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2020 PLP 1599 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji MUHAMMAD ASHRAF QURESHI — Petitioner Versus NANKI BAI and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Powers-of-Attorney Act (VII of 1882) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 1599 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Powers-of-Attorney Act (VII of 1882) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 1599 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Hyderabad Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP 1599 (CLC) (Haji MUHAMMAD ASHRAF QURESHI — Petitioner Versus NANKI BAI and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Waseem Shah for Petitioner.
- Parkash Kumar for Respondent No.1.
- Wali Muhammad Jamari, Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh.
Headnotes / Summary
S.2
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 15
Application for eviction of tenant
Power of attorney, validity of
Plea on behalf of tenant that eviction proceedings filed by attorney for the landlady before the Rent Controller had not been filed on the basis of proper General Power of Attorney establishing the actual and valid agency available with the said attorney
Held, that said matter rested between the principal (landlady) and her attorney to which the tenant (petitioner) could not claim to hold any interest to claim any right as long as the Power of Attorney was in compliance to the relevant law i.e. Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882
No fatal defect to the said attorney was pointed out nor was any established in the concluded rent proceedings
Constitutional petition having no merits was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MAHMOOD A. KHAN, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the concurrent rent proceedings in the matter whereby the application under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 filed on account of personal need and default was allowed has failed to consider that the said proceedings have not been filed on the basis of proper General Power of Attorney establishing the actual and valid agency available with the said attorney. Learned counsel for the petitioner who is a tenant, however has not been able to show any defect in the proceedings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court whereby any fundamental rights of the petitioner whose eviction has been ordered has been exposed let alone put to any violation. As to the contention that the attorney was not proper as appearing in the proceedings it may be observed that the said matter rest between the principal and her attorney to which the said tenant cannot claim to holding any interest to claim any right as long as the Power of Attorney is in compliance to the relevant Law of Power of Attorney Act, 1882. No fatal defect to the said attorney pointed out nor have been got established in the concluded rent proceedings, this petition having no merits stands dismissed. MWA/M-121/Sindh Petition dismissed.