1984 PLP 1327 (SCMR)
Raja SALEEM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus HABIBULLAH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1327 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, M.S.H. Quraishi and |
| Parties | Raja SALEEM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus HABIBULLAH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1327 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1327 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, M.S.H. Quraishi and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1327 (SCMR) (Raja SALEEM AKHTAR — Petitioner Versus HABIBULLAH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gul Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq Advocate on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th January, 1984.
- Gul Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated 24-8-1983 in First Appeal No. 406 of 1983).
Art. 185(3)--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15 read with S.2(f)--Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent- Relationship of landlord and tenant having been established, High Court considering, framing of any issue or recording formal finding on such question, unnecessary--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Gul Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th January, 1984. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner is a tenant of the premises Flat No.l situated on First Floor, Post Office Building, Central Commercial Area, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi at a monthly rent of Rs.350. An ejectment application was filed by the respondents before the Rent Controller, Karachi on the ground of default in payment of rent since 1‑7‑1976; for creating nuisance in the neighbourhood and for personal need. The learned Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the petitioner vide judgment, dated 28‑2‑1982. An appeal was preferred in the Sind High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner before us contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and about this very important point the petitioner had made a categorical averment in his written statement. He further contended that there was no default in the payment of rent as the petitioner demanded receipt for the payment of rent but the landlord refused to give any receipt for the rent and insisted upon the enhancement of the monthly rent. The petitioner, therefore, remitted the rent for July and August, 1977 through money order which was refused by the landlord. Consequently, the petitioner started depositing the monthly rent in the Court vide Miscellaneous Rent Application No.3186/77.
3. From the impugnment judgment of the High Court we find that the petitioner had agitated one point before the learned High court Judge and that was with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between' the parties as has been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the judgment. In paragraph 10 the learned Judge has dealt with the argument raised before us in the manner that the two respondents were the sons of Ghulam Muhammad. Ghulam Ahmad is dead and all the three respondents are his legal heirs and entitled to collect rent in respect of the disputed premises and hence they are landlords within the meaning of section 2 (f) of the Ordinance. In these circumstances the learned Judge considered that it was not necessary to frame any issue or record a formal finding on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
4. The learned counsel, however, contended that the landlord is alive and could be produced in Court. Even then it would not help him because if the landlord is alive it is admitted that one of the respondents is attorney of his father and used to collect the rent and the respondents were thus entitled to file the ejectment application. Hence; we find no merit in this petition which is, consequently, dismissed. S. Q. Petition dismissed.