2006 PLP 802 (CLC)
JAVED IQBAL and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 802 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Amir Hani Muslim, J |
| Parties | JAVED IQBAL and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 802 (CLC)?
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 2006 PLP 802 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Amir Hani Muslim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 802 (CLC) (JAVED IQBAL and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaikh Fazaluddin for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(f)(j), 15 & 21
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Relationship of landlord and tenant
Petitioner/tenant had contended that premises in dispute was on tenancy initially, but subsequently landlord by virtue of sale agreement had sold the same to him
Petitioner had submitted that on the date of execution of said sale agreement, he had ceased to be a tenant and had become the owner of the premises in question
Sale agreement itself did not confer title upon petitioner/tenant and jurisdiction of Rent Controller would continue unless Civil Court would give finding in favour of petitioner
Proceedings before Rent Controller and Appellate Authority were independent of plea raised by the petitioner-No infirmity was found in the orders impugned in proceedings to warrant interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. 2004 SCMR 53 and PLD 2004 SC 465 ref.
Judgment & Decree
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.
Through this petition the petitioner has impugned the order of the Rent Controller which was affirmed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur whereby the petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the premises in question. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the premises in dispute was on tenancy initially and subsequently the landlord by virtue of sale agreement had sold the property to the petitioner. He submits that on the date of execution of this agreement he became the owner and his status from tenant to owner has been changed. He has relied upon the judgments reported in 2004 SCMR 53 and PLD 2004 SC
465. I am not persuaded to the arguments of the learned counsel as much as both the authorities of the Honorable Supreme Court are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Sale agreement itself does not confer title upon the petitioner and jurisdiction of Rent Controller continues unless the Civil Court give finding in favour of the petitioner. The proceedings before the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge were independent of the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I do not find any infirmity in the orders impugned in these proceedings which warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This petition is dismissed in limine along with the listed application. H.B.T./J-5/K Petition dismissed