1998 PLP 394 (MLD)
Syed HUSSAIN ALI SHAH — Appellant Versus SHAMSUDDIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 394 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed HUSSAIN ALI SHAH — Appellant Versus SHAMSUDDIN — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 394 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 394 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 394 (MLD) (Syed HUSSAIN ALI SHAH — Appellant Versus SHAMSUDDIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Kadir Shaikh for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 18 & 21
General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 27
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129
Dismissal of application for ejectment of tenant by Rent Controller
Grounds for dismissal of application for ejectment were want of relationship of landlord and tenant and non-service of notice in terms of S.18, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
Respondent was admittedly in possession of premises in question and had admitted in written statement that he was liable to pay rent
Respondent had not claimed ownership of premises in question
Rent was already determined
Respondent had himself produced order of allotment in favour of original owner who had transferred the same to petitioner
Respondent was, thus, undoubtedly tenant and would fall within scope of law
Letter of transfer of ownership was sent to respondent through registered post on his correct address, therefore, presumption was attached thereto that letter in question was delivered to respondent
Relationship of landlord and tenant, thus, stood established between parties and respondent was liable to pay rent which he had admittedly not paid and had denied relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of demised premises
Respondent had himself admitted in his cross-examination that he had not paid rent to appellant, therefore, default stood established on record-- Findings of Rent Controller whereby he had dismissed application for ejectment, being not correct, were set aside
Ejectment of tenant was ordered in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(1) Muhammad Rafique v. Messrs Habib Bank Limited (1994 SCMR 1012). (2) Rahim Bakhsh v. Ch. Ahmad Bakhsh and others (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 189). (3) Mst. Fatima Bi and 15 others v. Muhammad Amin (PLD 1984 Karachi 63). (4) Pakistan Art Emporium Shop No.C/6 v. Palace Hotel, Karachi (1989 CLC 34).
6. Mr. Abdul Kadir Shaikh learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the respondent is not the tenant, therefore, the application was misconceived. He has relied upon the following judgments:-- (1) Sh. Salahuddin v. Malik Muhammad Yakoob (NLR 1980 UC 456). (2) Ghulam Muhammad v. Abdul Ghaffar and another (UC of this Court in F.R.A. No.11/82). (3) Beejal Mal v. Punaji (1987 CLC 1134). (4) Haji Faaqir Muhammad v. Hazratullah (1989 CLC 252).
7. In the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the respondent as a matter of fact, the Courts came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant was wanting and, therefore, the relief was denied to the landlord. In this case it is to be seen whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the patties. If it does as a matter of fact, then the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the respondent would not be attracted.
8. The definition of tenant as given in section 2(J) reads as follows:-- "(J) 'tenant' means any person who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the possession or occupation of any premises by him or by any other person on his behalf and includes: -- (i) any person who continues to be in possession or occupation of the premises after the termination of his tenancy; (ii) heirs of the tenant in possession or occupation of the premises after the death of the tenant; and It is admitted that the respondent is in possession of the premises i.e. 755 Sq.feet. He admitted in written statement that he is liable to pay the rent. He is not claiming ownership of the premises. The rent was already determined and the respondent himself with his affidavit in evidence, produced the letter, therefore, he is undoubtedly tenant and falls within the scope of law.
10. In order to determine whether the appellant is landlord, the evidence on the record reveals that the notice under section 18 was served on the respondent. That notice is at page-47 of the trial Court record. The address of the respondent is correctly shown and not disputed by him, receipt of registered letter issued by Post Office is also available on record, which is not disputed by the respondent and the Post-man was also examined by the trial Court. This notice was denied by the respondent and stated that he did not receive this notice. I checked the admitted signature of the respondent on the written statement and the signature on "the acknowledgment due" receipt at page-49. I also checked his signature on affidavit in evidence. The pattern of writing word "S" is identical in all these documents.
11. The address on the acknowledgement due, is not disputed by the respondent. He has however, denied that he received letter. It is well-settled law that if the notice is sent in registered post on a correct address, presumption under section 27 of General Clauses Act is attached, and it will be presumed that the letter is delivered.
12. For all these reasons, I hold that the notice under section 18 has been served on the respondent, as such the relationship of landlord and tenant is created between the appellant and the respondent, therefore, he was liable to pay the rent 6f the portion under his occupation admeasuring 75J Sq. feet
13. Since the relationship of landlord and tenant is established admittedly he has not paid the rent, as such default is established on the face of record. In this connection he has admitted in cross-examination that he never offered any, rent to the appellant. He further stated that in case this Court direct me to pay some reasonable rent I will pay the rent." Since the default is established it is, therefore, held that the findings of the Rent Controller are not correct and therefore set aside and the rent application is allowed, ejectment is ordered to the extent that the premises which are in possession of the respondent, shall be vacated and handed over to the appellant by 30-1-1997. A.A./H-36/K Ejectment ordered.