1988 PLP 1585 (MLD)
ATAUR REHMAN‑‑Appellant Versus Sh. KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1585 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J |
| Parties | ATAUR REHMAN‑‑Appellant Versus Sh. KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1585 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1585 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1585 (MLD) (ATAUR REHMAN‑‑Appellant Versus Sh. KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mazharul Jamil for Appellant.
- Muhammad Ashraf Kazi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st March, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.14, first proviso‑‑Application for ejectment after age of sixty years‑‑Landlord letting out premises after attaining age of sixty years, held, was debarred from filing application under first proviso to S.14 of the Ordinance.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance; 1979 is filed by the landlord/appellant against the order of Rent Controller, dated 12th February, 1984. By the impugned order the Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the appellant under section 14 of the Ordinance on the ground that the appellant after having attained the age of 60 years had let out a similar premises m the building to another person. Mr.Mazharul Jamil, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the letting out of the premises by the appellant in the year 1983 was of no significance as the requirement of the appellant was in respect of the ground floor of premises as he was advised by the Doctor not to climb the stairs on account of High Blood Pressure and Esthama. The contention raised by the learned counsel has no force. The appellant/landlord in his evidence before the Rent Controller admitted in cross‑examination that in the year 1983 he got vacated a flat on the first floor of the building and let out the same to another person. The appellant became 60 years of age in. the yea=, 1980‑
81. The appellant having let out the premises after attaining the age of 60 years was debarred under the 1st proviso to section 14 of the Ordinance from filing the ejectment case under section 14 ibid. The Rent Controller, therefore, rightly dismissed the application of the appellant. There is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./A‑326/K Appeal dismissed.