2008 PLP 65 (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJEED and others — Petitioners Versus Trustees of Haji Sir ABDULLAH HAROON WAKF NO.1 and Others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 65 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED and others — Petitioners Versus Trustees of Haji Sir ABDULLAH HAROON WAKF NO.1 and Others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 65 (SCMR)?
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 2008 PLP 65 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 65 (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJEED and others — Petitioners Versus Trustees of Haji Sir ABDULLAH HAROON WAKF NO.1 and Others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.S.K. Ghouri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.606-K of 2005).
- Iftikhar Javed Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.617-K, 618-K and 647-K of 2005).
- Shamsuddin Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmadullah Farooqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.624-K to 631-K, 647-K, 676-K to 678-K of 2005).
- Miss Wajahat Niaz, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent-Trust.
- ----Ss. 15(2)(vi), (3)(4) & 21---Sindh. Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act (XII of 1994), Ss.6 & 10(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Ejectment of tenant on ground of reconstruction---Ejectment was sought on sole ground of demolition and reconstruction of demised premises for which appropriate permission and approval was obtained from the relevant Authorities---Stance of petitioners was that building sought to be demolished having been declared as "protected heritage" Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed against them---Said' objection was turned down and ejectment was ordered---Respondent-Trust had already moved appropriate application against inclusion of building in the Schedule of "protected heritage before concerned Authorities which was sub judice---Rent Controller as well as appellate Authority had directed that execution of ejectment order would be contingent upon the order that might be passed on said application of respondent-Trust--- Apprehension of petitioners was that on reconstruction of the building in question, they might be put in disadvantageous position and not accommodated in the newly-constructed premises with an area equivalent to one already in their occupation---Advocate-on-Record, who appeared on behalf of respondent-Trust, made categorical statement that subject to clearance by the Government for proposed demolition, after construction of the building, Right of petitioners would be fully protected---No other point having been raised for adjudication by the Supreme Court, petition stood disposed of in terms of undertaking furnished on behalf of the respondent-Trust.
- 4. Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondent-Trust, Miss Wajahat Niaz, learned Advocate-on-Record has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-Trust and she makes a categorical statement at the Bar that, subject to clearance by the Government of Sindh for the proposed demolition, after reconstruction of the building, rights of the petitioners-tenants shall be fully protected and the respondent-Trust shall strictly abide by the provisions contained in subsections (3) and (4) of section 15 of the Ordinance, 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 24-6-2005 passed in C.Ps. Nos.S-383, 431, 640, 436 to 440, 442 to 444, 213, 895 to 897 of 2003).
Ss. 15(2)(vi), (3)(4) & 21
Sindh. Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act (XII of 1994), Ss.6 & 10(3)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Ejectment of tenant on ground of reconstruction
Ejectment was sought on sole ground of demolition and reconstruction of demised premises for which appropriate permission and approval was obtained from the relevant Authorities
Stance of petitioners was that building sought to be demolished having been declared as "protected heritage" Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed against them
Said' objection was turned down and ejectment was ordered
Respondent-Trust had already moved appropriate application against inclusion of building in the Schedule of "protected heritage before concerned Authorities which was sub judice
Rent Controller as well as appellate Authority had directed that execution of ejectment order would be contingent upon the order that might be passed on said application of respondent-Trust
Apprehension of petitioners was that on reconstruction of the building in question, they might be put in disadvantageous position and not accommodated in the newly-constructed premises with an area equivalent to one already in their occupation
Advocate-on-Record, who appeared on behalf of respondent-Trust, made categorical statement that subject to clearance by the Government for proposed demolition, after construction of the building, Right of petitioners would be fully protected
No other point having been raised for adjudication by the Supreme Court, petition stood disposed of in terms of undertaking furnished on behalf of the respondent-Trust. Nemo for other Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
These petitions are directed against Sindh High Court judgment, dated, 24-6-2005 whereby constitutional petitions filed by the petitioners against the findings of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority in rent cases filed by respondent No.1-Trust on the ground of reconstruction have been dismissed.
2. Petitioners are the tenants in different portions of the buildings constructed at Plots Nos.42 SB-6, 28 SB-6 and 53 SB-4, Raja Ghazanfar Ali Road, Karachi consisting of several residential and commercial tenements. Eviction of the petitioners was sought on the sole ground of demolition and reconstruction of the premises for which appropriate permission and approval was obtained from the relevant authorities. The stance of the petitioners before the forums under the rent laws as well as the Sindh High Court appears to be that buildings sought to be demolished have been declared as `protected heritage' under section 6 of Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1994), therefore, Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to proceed against them. This objection was turned down and the ejectment ordered, subject to the order by Government of Sindh in terms of section 10(3) of the Act, 1994.
3. On its part, Sindh High Court has extensively and elaborately dealt with the provisions of the rent laws, relatable to demolition and reconstruction of a building as well as provisions of Act, 1994 with regard to buildings declared as `protected heritage' and appeal before the Government of Sindh in terms of section 10(3) of the Act, 1994. It is admitted that respondent-Trust have already moved appropriate application against inclusion of buildings in the Schedule of `Protected Heritage' before the concerned authorities, which is still sub judice. In this view of the matter the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have directed that the execution of ejectment order shall be contingent upon the order that may be passed by the Government of Sindh on the application of the respondent-Trust. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner's counsel appears to be that, on reconstruction of the buildings, petitioners-tenants might be put to disadvantageous position and not accommodated in the newly constructed premises with an area equivalent to one already in their occupation in terms of section 15(3) and (4) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, 1979).
4. Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondent-Trust, Miss Wajahat Niaz, learned Advocate-on-Record has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-Trust and she makes a categorical statement at the Bar that, subject to clearance by the Government of Sindh for the proposed demolition, after reconstruction of the building, rights of the petitioners-tenants shall be fully protected and the respondent-Trust shall strictly abide by the provisions contained in subsections (3) and (4) of section 15 of the Ordinance, 1979.
5. In this view of the matter, no other point is raised for adjudication by this Court with the consequence that these petitions stand disposed of accordingly in terms of the undertaking furnished on behalf of the respondent-Trust. No order as to costs. H.B.T./A-26/SC Order accordingly.