1984 PLP 1942 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER — ‑Appellants Versus INAYATULLAH‑ — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1942 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER — ‑Appellants Versus INAYATULLAH‑ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | 2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui learned counsel for the appellants has urged as follows :‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1942 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: 2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui learned counsel for the appellants has urged as follows :‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1942 (CLC)?
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: 1984 PLP 1942 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER — ‑Appellants Versus INAYATULLAH‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 16‑Tentative rent order‑Non‑compliance of‑Rent Controller framing preliminary issue on question of relationship, deciding same and passing tentative rent order‑Tenant not complying same‑Held Tenants were duty bound to comply with tentative rent order till decision of main case on merits‑Non‑compliance, held, rightly followed by striking off defence and order of eviction.
Judgment & Decree
Mumtaz Ali Siddlgui for Appellants. Respondent in person. Date of hearing : 1st November, 1983. This is an appeal against the order dated 23‑8‑1983 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Jacobabad, in Rent Applica tion No. 74/1980, previous No. 5/1975 ordering striking off appellants defence on the ground of non‑compliance of the tenative rent order dated 24‑5‑1983. The appellants being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present appeal.
2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui learned counsel for the appellants has urged as follows :‑
(i) That the property in fact belongs to the Municipal Committee and, therefore, the respondent had no right to file ejectment application. (ii) That the rent application filed by the previous landlord through whom the respondent is claiming, was rejected on the ground that there was no relationship.
3. It is an admitted position that the appellants till today have not complied with the above tentative rent order. The Rent Controller had framed a preliminary issue on the question of relationship which was decided after recording of the evidence and hearing of the parties by an order dated 25‑4‑1983. After that tentative rent order was passed. The appellants were duty bound to comply with the above tentative rent order till decision of the main case on merits. Since they have not complied with the tentative rent order, the points raised by Mr. Siddiqui cannot be agitated in view of latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Akhter Jehan Begum and 4 others v. Muhammad Azam Khan (P L D 1983 S C 1). It may also be mentioned that rent case was filed as far back as in 1975 and we are in 1983. The appeal is dismissed in limine. M. B. A. Appeal dismissed.