MLD 2010

2010 PLP 98 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD LAIQ KHAN HAMDAM — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD KHALIQ KHAN through Legal Heirs — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
2008-December-4
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP 98 (MLD)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD LAIQ KHAN HAMDAM — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD KHALIQ KHAN through Legal Heirs — Respondent
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 2010 PLP 98 (MLD)?

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 2010 PLP 98 (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: 2010 PLP 98 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD LAIQ KHAN HAMDAM — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD KHALIQ KHAN through Legal Heirs — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)

Representation

  • Zain A. Jatoi for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss.2(F)(j), 15 & 21

Dismissal of ejectment application

Appeal

Description of premises and relationship of landlord and tenant

Appellant/landlord whose application had been dismissed by the Rent Controller, had submitted that Rent Controller had failed to understand the description of total property as well as description of the premises under tenancy

Landlord had further submitted that only the first floor of the building, which was also known as shop, was under tenancy, while rest of the portions of that property were illegally occupied by the tenant, but even then the Rent Controller had mixed up all that issues and instead of passing any order on merits, had disposed of the case on the ground of non-relationship of tenancy

Counsel for the tenant had contended that property under tenancy being first floor of the building only, Rent Controller would have decided that issue only

Order of Rent Controller was set aside by High Court with consent of parties, with the direction to the Rent Controller to first determine and understand the premises involved and thereafter to proceed with the matter and decide the same on merits within specified period.

Judgment & Decree

MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Rent Controller Faisal Cantonment Karachi, dated 12-4-2003, in Rent Case No.6 of 2002, whereby, the rent case of the appellant has been dismissed.

2. Mr. Muhammad Aqil, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Rent Controller has failed to understand the description of total property as well as description of the premises under tenancy. He further submits that only the first floor of the building, which is also known as Shop No.5 in terms of the Extract From the General Land Registrar of Cantonment Board, was under tenancy while rest of the portions of that property were illegally occupied by the respondents but even then the Rent Controller has mixed up all that issues and instead of passing any order on merits has disposed of the rent case on the ground of non-relationship of tenancy.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Zain A. Jatoi, learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the appellant is not actual owner of the property but has got this property mutated in his name as Muhammad Khaliq Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, was not maintaining good health. He further submits that he can prove even title of his client on merits. He further contends that he has also come to know that a Civil Suit bearing No.31012007 has been filed for possession and mesne profit, to which, Mr. Aqil has stated that since there was no remedy available and the rent matter was pending since, 2002, therefore, this step was taken but after realizing status of the parties that suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation contrary to the ruling reported as 1991 SCMR 2063. He reiterated that the property under tenancy was first floor of the building only, hence, Rent Controller would have decided that issue only.

4. In such a situation, with the consent of both the learned counsel, the order, dated 12-4-2003 is set aside with the direction to the learned Rent Controller to first determine and understand the premises involved and thereafter to proceed with the matter and decide the same on merits within a period of six months. H.B.T./M-198/K Order accordingly.