1993 PLP 1849 (CLC)
ABDUR RAHMAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus TANWEER USMANI ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1849 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi, J |
| Parties | ABDUR RAHMAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus TANWEER USMANI ‑‑‑ Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1849 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1849 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1849 (CLC) (ABDUR RAHMAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus TANWEER USMANI ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- N.M. Khan for Appellant
- Iftikhar Jawed Qazi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 8 & 9‑‑‑Fair rent‑‑‑Fixation of‑‑‑Bar to‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Duty of Rent Controller under S.8 of Ordinance‑‑‑Bar referred to under S.9 of Ordinance 1979 for fixation of fair rent would apply only after fair rent of premises had already been fixed by Rent Controller‑‑‑Rent Controller otherwise must exercise jurisdiction vested in him under S. 8 of the Ordinance. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Fair rent‑‑‑Fixation of‑‑‑Application for fixation of fair rent was dismissed by Rent Controller without considering different factors enumerated in S. 8‑‑‑Rent Controller having failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under law, case was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss. 8 & 9‑‑‑Fair rent‑‑‑Fixation of‑‑‑Bar to‑‑‑Applicability‑‑‑Duty of Rent Controller under S.8 of Ordinance‑‑‑Bar referred to under S.9 of Ordinance 1979 for fixation of fair rent would apply only after fair rent of premises had already been fixed by Rent Controller‑‑‑Rent Controller otherwise must exercise jurisdiction vested in him under S. 8 of the Ordinance. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Fair rent‑‑‑Fixation of‑‑‑Application for fixation of fair rent was dismissed by Rent Controller without considering different factors enumerated in S. 8‑‑‑Rent Controller having failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under law, case was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law. N.M. Khan for Appellant Iftikhar Jawed Qazi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 31st March, 1991. This appeal calls in question the order passed by the learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi West, dated 14‑4‑1988, dismissing the appellant's application filed under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for fixation of fair rent. The learned Controller has dismissed the application and declined to fix fair rent. Although various reasons have been enumerated in the impugned order for dismissal of the application, but a perusal of the order shows that the provisions of section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, have not been properly understood by the learned Controller. Even Mr. Iftikhar Jawed Qazi, the learned counsel for the respondent, concedes that notwithstanding the fact that the rent for the premises had been enhanced from Rs.290 p.m. to Rs.360 p.m., the learned Controller still could not have declined to exercise his jurisdiction under section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance. The bar referred to under section 9 of the said Ordinance would apply only after fair rent of any premises has already been fixed by the Rent Controller. Section 8 shows that the Rent Controller is under an obligation to determine fair rent of the premises after taking into consideration different factors enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of the said section. There is, therefore, a clear refusal on the part of the learned Controller to exercise jurisdiction vesting in him under the law which he could not have done. Under the circumstances, by consent, the case is remanded to the learned Controller for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. Both the parties shall be at liberty to lead further evidence if they find the same necessary before the learned Controller. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no orders as to costs. H.B.T./A‑1376/K Case remanded