2009 PLP 474 (MLD)
ACE SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD through Director — Petitioner Versus Dr. ABDUL HAKIM ABRASH and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 474 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ACE SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD through Director — Petitioner Versus Dr. ABDUL HAKIM ABRASH and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 474 (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 2009 PLP 474 (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: 2009 PLP 474 (MLD) (ACE SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD through Director — Petitioner Versus Dr. ABDUL HAKIM ABRASH and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 2(F)(J) & 15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment proceedings---Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties---Rent Controller, without first deciding issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, proceeded to record the evidence of landlord/petitioner, but did not record the statement of respondent/tenant---Counsel for petitioner, had conceded that Rent Controller had to be directed to decide the issue about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at the first instance---Counsel for respondent/tenant had also conceded that Rent Controller should have first decided the application filed by the petitioner under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. to resolve the question of jurisdiction in connection with the cause of action accrued to the landlord against the tenant by way of filing ejectment application---Counsel for petitioner did not press the application which was disposed of along with listed application with the direction to the Rent Controller to decide the application filed by the petitioner under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. at the first instance before proceeding to record the evidence of tenant for materially resolving the question of jurisdiction.
- Haider Waheed for Petitioner.
- Asif Ali Pirzada for Respondent.
- When confronted with the above position. Mr. Haider Waheed learned counsel for petitioner has fairly conceded that the learned Rent Controller be directed to decide the issue about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at the first instance. It is next urged that materially the question relating to landlord and the tenant ought to have been decided by the learned Rent Controller in consonance with the dictum laid down in Nazar Mooraj through Legal Heirs v. Iftikhar Hussain through Legal Heirs (2001 SCMR 1437), the relevant portion is reproduced herein below:--
- When confronted with the above position, Mr. Asif Ali Pirzada has conceded that the learned Rent Controller should first decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. at the first instance to resolve the question of jurisdiction in connection with the cause of action accrued to the landlord against the tenant by way of filing ejectment application. In view of the above circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner does not press the petition which is accordingly disposed of along with listed application with the direction to the learned Rent Controller to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at the first instance before proceeding to record the evidence of tenant for materially resolving the question of jurisdiction.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(F)(J) & 15
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties
Rent Controller, without first deciding issue of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, proceeded to record the evidence of landlord/petitioner, but did not record the statement of respondent/tenant
Counsel for petitioner, had conceded that Rent Controller had to be directed to decide the issue about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at the first instance
Counsel for respondent/tenant had also conceded that Rent Controller should have first decided the application filed by the petitioner under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. to resolve the question of jurisdiction in connection with the cause of action accrued to the landlord against the tenant by way of filing ejectment application
Counsel for petitioner did not press the application which was disposed of along with listed application with the direction to the Rent Controller to decide the application filed by the petitioner under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. at the first instance before proceeding to record the evidence of tenant for materially resolving the question of jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
MRS. QAISAR IQBAL, J.
There seems to be a controversy between the landlord and the tenant in ,respect of demised premises pending adjudication before IXth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller (South) at Karachi. Mr. Asif Ali Pirzada states that learned Rent Controller had proceeded to record the evidence of the landlord did not record the statement of the tenant therefore interim order operating in the petition be vacated as it is hampering the rights of the parties particularly that of the landlord and will cause irreparable loss to him. When confronted with the above position. Mr. Haider Waheed learned counsel for petitioner has fairly conceded that the learned Rent Controller be directed to decide the issue about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties at the first instance. It is next urged that materially the question relating to landlord and the tenant ought to have been decided by the learned Rent Controller in consonance with the dictum laid down in Nazar Mooraj through Legal Heirs v. Iftikhar Hussain through Legal Heirs (2001 SCMR 1437), the relevant portion is reproduced herein below:-- "It is well settled by now that "the issue whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties is one of jurisdiction and should be determined first, in case of its answer be in negative the Court loses scission over lis and must stay his hands forthwith". (PLD 1961 Lahore 61)(DB). There is no cavil to the proportion that non establishment of relationship of landlady and tenant as envisaged by the Ordinance will not attract the provisions of the Ordinance. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in 1971 SCMR
82. We are conscious of the fact that ownership has nothing to do with the position of landlord and payment of rent by tenant and receipt thereof by landlord is sufficient to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties." When confronted with the above position, Mr. Asif Ali Pirzada has conceded that the learned Rent Controller should first decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. at the first instance to resolve the question of jurisdiction in connection with the cause of action accrued to the landlord against the tenant by way of filing ejectment application. In view of the above circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner does not press the petition which is accordingly disposed of along with listed application with the direction to the learned Rent Controller to decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. at the first instance before proceeding to record the evidence of tenant for materially resolving the question of jurisdiction. H.B.T./A-181/K Order accordingly.