1985 PLP 1892 (CLC)
Mst. NAZIMA BEGUM and 2 others-Petitioners Versus RENT CONTROLLER, Lahore and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1892 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | Mst. NAZIMA BEGUM and 2 others-Petitioners Versus RENT CONTROLLER, Lahore and 8 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1892 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1892 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1892 (CLC) (Mst. NAZIMA BEGUM and 2 others-Petitioners Versus RENT CONTROLLER, Lahore and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Yunas Khan for Petitioners.
- Ghulam Muhammad Bhatti for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13(6)--Ejectment proceedings stayed sine die till disposal of suit for specific performance pending in civil Court--Effect--Mere pendency of suit for specific performance, held, would not clothe Rent Controller with jurisdiction, to stay ejectment proceedings sine die--Such order being without jurisdiction declared to be of no legal effect in circum stances--Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42. Haji Jan Muhammad v. Ghulam Ghaus and 2 others 1976 SCMR 141 ref.
Judgment & Decree
This writ petition arises out of order, dated 7-10-1984 of the learned Rent Controller, Lahore whereby he stayed ejectment proceedings pending against the contesting respondents sine die till the disposal of a suit for specific performance, instituted by Mst. Haseena Begum, one of the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to stay ejectment proceedings against respondents Nos. 2 to 9 merely because a suit for specific performance of an agreement allegedly executed between the original owner and Mst. Haseena Begum was pending decision in the Civil Court. It was submitted that there is no clause in the aforesaid agreement exempting the respondents from payment of rent to the owner-landlord, as such, she is under legal obligation to pay rent and failure whereof would render her liable to ejectment. He relied on Haji Jan Muhammad v. Ghulam Ghaus and 2 others 1976 SCMR 141 in support of his submission.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the contrary, submitted that the original owner had in fact agreed to sell the disputed property in favour of the respondent No. 2 on 2-11-1980 long before 30-6-1982 when the disputed property was sold in favour of the petitioners. It was stated that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller staying ejectment proceedings during the pendency of the suit for specific performance, instituted by the respondents was just and legal.
4. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and find that mere pendency of the suit for specific performance of an agreement does not clothe the learned Rent Controller with jurisdiction to stay the ejectment proceedings sine die. The perusal of the agreement, dated 2-11-1980 shows that there was no stipulation exempting the vendee from payment of rent of the disputed property to the vendor-landlord. The respondents, therefore, continued to occupy the disputed property in the same capacity, in which they were in its occupation prior to the execution of the agreement, dated 2-11-1980 and obliged to pay rent and failure whereof entailed the consequence of their ejectment.
5. In the result, the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller having been passed without jurisdiction is declared to be of no legal effect. The learned Rent Controller shall resume proceedings in the matter in accordance with law.
6. There shall be no order as to costs. A.A. Petition accepted.