2001S C M R 1314 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SALEEM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
| Citation | 2001S C M R 1314 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SALEEM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001S C M R 1314 (PLP)?
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 2001S C M R 1314 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001S C M R 1314 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SALEEM and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 297‑K of 1998 and for Respondent (in C.P. No. 476‑K of 1998).
- Siddique Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Miss Wajahat Niaz, Advocate‑on‑Record .for Petitioner (in C.Ps. Nos.476‑K of 1998 and for Respondent (in C.P. No.297‑K of 1998).
- Date of hearing: 15th July, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 13‑2‑1998 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in F.R.A. Nos.96 and 124 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Fixation of fair rent‑‑‑Evidential facts not taken into consideration‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Rent of the premises was raised by Rent Controller to a sum of Rs.4,000 per month, while High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction had modified the order of the Rent Controller and fixed the monthly rent as Rs.2,500 per month‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Held, there were several aspects to S. 8 of Sindh Rented Premises. Ordinance, 1979, and each, though in varying degree weighed for consideration in assessing fixation of fair rent‑‑‑Some of the such aspects were not found on the record and the same could not be addressed by recording of further evidence‑‑‑High Court had recorded its conclusion without having due recourse to the evidential facts ‑‑‑Supreme Court with the consent of the parties converted the petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside the order of High Court and case was remanded High Court for decision afresh.
Judgment & Decree
WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑‑These are two cross‑petitions, challenging the fixation of fair rent through the impugned order of the High Court of Sindh dated 13‑2‑1998 in F.R.As. Nos.96 of 1997 and 124 of 1997. In the way of fixation of fair rent of the tenant‑hold, the learned Controller had raised the monthly rate from Rs.800 to Rs.4,
200. Such was reduced by the High Court to Rs.2500 and the reasons for the same are recorded by the learned Judge in Chambers as follows:‑‑ "In view of the prevailing circumstances and the fact that cost of living has considerably increased in all respect the order of the Rent Controller dated 29‑4‑1997 is modified to the extent that the monthly rent for the disputed flat is reduced from Rs.4,200 per month to Rs.2,500 per month from the date of filing of the application. If any payment of rent has been made in pursuance to the impugned order passed by the Rent n roller the said amount shall be adjusted in accordance with ‑t‑Fe‑present order. However considering the tenant being old retired Government employee four months' time is allowed to make necessary adjustment. The parties are left to bear their own costs. First Rent Appeal No.96 of 1997 is allowed and disposed of accordingly alongwith the pending application. F.R.A. No.124 of 1997 filed by the landlord State Life Insurance Corporation is dismissed accordingly." There are several aspects to section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance and each, though in varying degree weighs for consideration in assessing fixation of fair rent. Some such aspects were not obviously there on the record and others, the learned counsel agree, could be addressed by recording further evidence under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance by the High Court. The High Court, however, recorded its conclusion without, apparently, having due recourse to the evidential facts. In the circumstances, these petitions are by consent, converted into appeals and the impugned orders are correspondingly set aside. The parties are left free to lead such other or further evidence under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance before the High Court, to which the matter is remanded, as found appropriate. Fresh orders would follow in due course at the level of the High Court itself. There would be no order as to costs in these proceedings. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑212/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.