1993 PLP 1800 (MLD)
PERVAIZ MASIH ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus ANWAR MASIH‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1800 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Haziqul Khairi, J |
| Parties | PERVAIZ MASIH ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus ANWAR MASIH‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1800 (MLD)?
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 1993 PLP 1800 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Haziqul Khairi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1800 (MLD) (PERVAIZ MASIH ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus ANWAR MASIH‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M4. Salma Nasiruddin for Appellant. Ghulam Ali Khokhar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 18th May, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 2(f) & (j)‑‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑‑Tenant denied relationship of landlord and tenant between parties alleging that rent agreement produced by landlord in Court was a forged document‑‑‑Tenant could not prove his case as even his own witness had admitted in cross- examination that. landlord was owner of premises‑‑‑Tenancy agreement executed between landlord and tenant was produced in Court and its execution was supported by its attesting witnesses who not only admitted their signatures thereon, but also verified signatures of tenant and landlord‑‑‑Attesting witnesses as well as other witnesses had stated that premises belonged to landlord‑‑‑Rent Controller on basis of sufficient satisfactory evidence had rightly found that relationship of landlord and tenant had been established between parties.
Judgment & Decree
The appellant in his written statement has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and contended that the house belongs to one Sabir Masih, the real brother of the appellant. The so‑called rent agreement produced by the respondent was a forged document and was never executed by him. It was further contended that the land is in Katchi Abadi and belongs to K.M.C. The following issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:‑‑ (1) Whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? (2) Whether the opponent has committed default in payment of rent? (3) What should the order be? The learned Rent Controller held that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent. The respondent produced a tenancy agreement dated 17‑5‑1982 executed between him and the appellant and found support from the attesting witnesses Jam Masih and Allah Noor, who not only admitted their signatures thereon but also verified the signatures of appellant and respondent. They further stated that the house belongs to the respondent: Other two witnesses Saudagar Masih and Hidayat Masih also supported the contention of the respondent. On the other hand, the appellant in his deposition had stated that he got the house constructed through Amanat Masih, but his witness Amanat Masih in cross‑examination admitted that he got the house constructed for the respondent, who is the owner thereof. There is thus sufficient satisfactory evidence to believe that the respondent is the owner and landlord of the premises as such the question of Katchi Abadi is of no significance. This is also a clear cut case of default in payment of rent as alleged by the respondent. The finding of the learned Rent Controller as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is correct so also his finding that the appellant had committed default in payment of rent. I accordingly find no substance in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed with costs. H.B.T./P‑261/K Appeal dismissed.