1983 PLP 723 (SCMR)
Syed ASGHAR ALI IMAM- Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 723 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed ASGHAR ALI IMAM- Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 723 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 723 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 723 (SCMR) (Syed ASGHAR ALI IMAM- Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munawar Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 1st December, 1982.
- Munawar Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 25th February, 1981 of the Sind High Court, passed in Second Rent Appeal No. 31 of 1981). -- Art. 185 (3)-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13 (2)(i)-Possession of premises said to have been delivered on 10th July, 1974 though according to written agreement, tenancy had commenced from 10tb June, 1974-Tenant paying six months rent in advance alongwith security deposit and also agreeing to pay six months advance rent, fifteen days before commencement of another term of six months-Tenant not paying rent. after expiry of first six months-Landlord filing ejectment application on ground of default two questions arising in case-First, whether agreement after efflux of first six months had expired and did no longer govern tenancy and secondly, whether security amount could be adjusted towards future rents-Questions requiring consideration, leave granted. Syed Wahajul Hasanain RIM v. Dr. Zahir Hussain C. P. S. L. A. No. K-111 of 1981 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Munawar Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 1st December, 1982. M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑This is the landlord's Petition for Leave to Appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court; whereby, in Second Appeal, an order of ejectment of the tenant passed by the' Rent Controller and affirmed in first Appeal was set aside and the ejectment Application of the landlord dismissed.
2. According to the written agreement between the parties, the tenancy had commenced from 10th June, 1974 though possession of the premises is said to have been delivered later, on 10th July, 1974, and six months advance rent at the rate of Rs. 1,100 per month had been paid along with a security deposit of Rs. 6,
600. It was one of the conditions of the agreement that the tenant would pay another Rs. 6,600, as rent in advance 15 days before the commencement of another term of six months terminable at the option of the landlord.
3. The tenant did not pay rent after the expiry of the first six months. The landlord, therefore, after serving notice on the tenant on 13th March 1975, filed the ejectment Application on 18th April, 1975. On the ground of default. The Rent Controller and the first Appellate Court found the tenant guilty of default but the High Court held that after the expiry of the first six months, and in any case after the notice dated, 13th March, 1975, the agreement had come to an end and thereafter the tenancy had become statutory, that the tenancy had actually commenced from 10th July, 1974, when possession of the premises had been delivered, that the amount of security deposit was adjustable towards future rents and that, therefore the tenant was not in default.
4. Two questions arise in the case, which require consideration. First, whether the agreement after the efflux of the first period of six! months had expired and did no longer govern the tenancy and secondly', whether the security amount could be adjusted towards future rents. Only similar questions, leave had been granted in Syed Wahajul Hasanain Rizvil v. Dr. Zahir Hussain (C.P.S.L.A. No. K‑111 of 1981). Accordingly we grant leave to Appeal. Security Rs. 2,
000. Leave granted.