2008 PLP 1672 (MLD)
Messrs SIDDIQUI FUND TRUST, KARACHI through Manager-Applicant Versus THE IVTH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI EAST and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1672 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs SIDDIQUI FUND TRUST, KARACHI through Manager-Applicant Versus THE IVTH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI EAST and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1672 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1672 (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: 2008 PLP 1672 (MLD) (Messrs SIDDIQUI FUND TRUST, KARACHI through Manager-Applicant Versus THE IVTH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI EAST and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.439
Applicant being aggrieved of encroachment by his tenant, moved District Court under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005
Applicant had stated that respondent who was tenant of applicant, had constructed rooms with bathroom adjacent to flats of applicant and thereby had encroached upon the land of the applicant Trust
Application was dismissed on the ground that respondent was not a land grabber and her possession of room did not fall within the meaning of "illegal possession"
Explanation given by the respondent for construction of room in question had no force as she could seek adjustment from landlady in respect to the rent of the premises--Respondent being a tenant could not be allowed to construct at her own additional room without any approval of applicant Trust
Respondent was illegally holding additional extended place and her occupation in respect to that extended portion was quite illegal, Trial Court was not justified to dismiss application of the applicant without apprehending the true wording of the law
Impugned order was set aside with the direction to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.
The controversy coming in this application is that the applicant being aggrieved of encroachment by his tenant moved the District Court under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. According to the applicant, the respondent No.2 is tenant in respect of Flat Nos. 109 and 110 and a rent proceeding has been filed in respect to this tenement. He submits that over and above the boundary of these flats, the respondent has constructed rooms of 18 x 12 with bathroom adjacent to these flats and thereby has encroached upon the land of applicant Trust. The application of the applicant under Illegal Dispossession Act was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East on the ground that lady, applicant No.2 is not a land grabber, hence her possession of room does not fall within the meaning of illegal possession. Learned counsel for the applicant has cited PLD 2007 SC 427, which clearly defined that all cases of illegal occupation would be covered by the Act. During the course of argument Mr. Muhammad Abdul Hameed, files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2, and submits that some portion of her client's flats were demolished by Layari Extension Way Authority and, therefore, the room has been constructed by a tenant. This explanation has no force as she may seek adjustment from landlady in respect to the rent of the premises, she cannot be allowed to construct at her own, additional room without any approval of applicant Trust.??????????? After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that since respondent No.2 is illegally holding additional extended place and her occupation in respect to that portion of 18' x 12' is quite illegal, therefore, Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly dismissed the application without apprehending the true wording .of the law, as well as authority cited, hence the order 7-5-2007 is set aside and he is directed to proceed with the matter. In terms of the above observation, this Criminal Revision Application is disposed of. H.B.T./S-64/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.