YLR 2012

2012 PLP 1713 (YLR)

AZMAT ZAMIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. ANEES JAMAL alias RUQIYA BEGUM and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh
Decided Date
Constitution Petition No.S-49 of 2011, decided on 20th February, 2012.
Honorable Judges
Faisal Arab, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2012 PLP 1713 (YLR)
Forum / Court Sindh
Bench Members Faisal Arab, J
Parties AZMAT ZAMIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. ANEES JAMAL alias RUQIYA BEGUM and another — Respondents
Primary Law Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII OF 1979)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 1713 (YLR)?

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 2012 PLP 1713 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: Faisal Arab, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 1713 (YLR) (AZMAT ZAMIR KHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. ANEES JAMAL alias RUQIYA BEGUM and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII OF 1979)

Representation

  • Abdul Jabbar Shaikh for Petitioner.
  • S. Kamran Ali, for Respondent No.1.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss.16 & 18

Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199

Constitutional Petition

Tenant (petitioner) assailed orders of Rent Controller whereby he was directed to deposit the arrears of the rent in court

Contention of the tenant was that since he had disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant, therefore, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to pass the order for deposit of rent

Validity

Rent order was passed on tentative assessment as rent agreement had been produced and admittedly the landlord was owner to the extent of 89% of the property and said rent agreement was executed by the tenant

Landlord had given legal notice to the tenant under S. 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Order of Rent Controller required no interference

Constitutional Petition was dismissed accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

FAISAL ARAB, J.

Respondent No.1 has filed rent case against the Petitioner who is her real son seeking eviction on the ground of default as well as personal bona fide use. An application under section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, has also been filed by Respondent No.1. The Rent Controller has passed rent order dated 7-1-2011, whereby he had directed the Petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent from the month of May, 2009 as well as future monthly rent at the rate of Rs.10,000 in Court. There is a rent agreement dated 20-6-2008, said to be executed between the Petitioner being tenant and his brothers i.e. the co-sharers of the premises being the landlord, who subsequently relinguish their share vide sale-deed dated 25-4-2009, in favour of their mother hence it has come on record that the respondent No.1 became the owner to the extent of 89.07 paisa share and the petitioner is owner to the extent of 10.93 paisa share in the property in question. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the petitioner has disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent No.1 therefore, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to pass rent order. The rent order was passed on the basis of tentative assessment as rent agreement has been produced and admittedly the respondent No.1 is owner to the extent of 89.07 of the property in question and the said rent agreement was executed by the petitioner in favour of the sons of the respondent No.1 who subsequently relinquish their share in favour of their mother i.e. the respondent No.1. Thereafter the respondent No.1 gave legal notice to the petitioner under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which has been received. In view of the above I am of the view that the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court but in the facts and circumstances of the case it would be just and equitable that the impugned order is modified to the extent of only rate of rent. The petitioner is directed to deposit the arrears of monthly rent from the month of May, 2009 and future monthly rent at the rate of Rs.5000 p.m. With these directions this petition stands disposed of. K.M.Z./A-37/K Order accordingly.