YLR 2008

2008 PLP 1774 (YLR)

Major (R.) ZAKAUDDIN KHAN and others — Appellants Versus S.M. ABDUL FETOUH through LR's — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
F.R.A. No.12 of 2002, decided on 2nd May, 2008.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Afzal Soomro, C. J.
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 1774 (YLR)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Muhammad Afzal Soomro, C. J.
Parties Major (R.) ZAKAUDDIN KHAN and others — Appellants Versus S.M. ABDUL FETOUH through LR's — Respondent
Primary Law Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1774 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1774 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Soomro, C. J..

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1774 (YLR) (Major (R.) ZAKAUDDIN KHAN and others — Appellants Versus S.M. ABDUL FETOUH through LR's — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 2(g) (j), 17(2) (i) & 24

Appeal

Ejectment of tenant on ground of default in payment of rent

Relationship of landlord and tenant

Existence of

Determination of

Appellant who claimed to be owner/ landlord of premises in question filed case against tenant on ground of default in payment of rent as well as for non-payment of utility charges

Tenant in his written statement denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties

Tenant had claimed that his wife had purchased premises in question from appellant and that appellant having refused to transfer and convey premises in question in her name, she filed a suit for specific performance of contract against appellant which was pending adjudication before the civil court

Dispute in respect of premises in question was subject matter of litigation before the court of law and until civil court would give its finding, Rent Controller was unable to determine whether relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties

Ejectment application filed by landlord was rightly rejected by the Rent Controller

Order of the Rent Controller which did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, would need no interference

Appeal was dismissed. Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and others 1983 SCMR 1064 ref. Nemo for the Appellant. Ghulam Akbar Jatoi for the Respondents.

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, C.J.

This case was fixed on 28-4-2008. Learned counsel for the appellant was called absent. However, in the interest of justice the matter was fixed on 2-5-2008 but again learned counsel for the appellant remained absent: I, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the impugned order and perused the relevant papers. This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order, dated 15-6-2002 passed by the learned Addl. Controller of Rents, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi, in Rent Case No.4 of 1987, whereby the ejectment application filed by deceased Maj.(R) Zakauddin Khan, owner/landlord of property No.10/1, Zamzama Boulevard, Clifton, Karachi was rejected. The facts leading to disposal of this appeal are that Maj.(R) Zakauddin Khan (since deceased), owner/landlord of the property in question rented out Eastern portion of his said bungalow to one S.M. Abdul Fatouh (the deceased opponent) from January, 1984 at the rate of Rs.5000 per month under an oral agreement. Said Abdul Fatouh (a foreigner) paid Rs.50,000 as advance rent at the rate of Rs.5000 per month which stood adjusted w.e.f. January, 1984 to October, 1984, whereafter he failed to pay the rent as well as utility charges inspite of repeated requests and on 12th January, 1987 Major Zakauddin Khan filed Rent Case No.4/87 under section 17 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 for eviction of S.M. Abdul Fatouh. This is a second round of litigation. Earlier this Court remanded the case to the learned Rent Controller for deciding the entire case including the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Mst. Nasim Anwar widow of the deceased applicant and her witness Major (R) Javed Iqbal were examined. A son of the deceased Ayman A. Fatouh was examined. The respondent in the written statement denied the allegations and submitted that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and the opponent and the opponent's wife Mrs. Zainab Adawy purchased the eastern portion of the plot in question from the applicant by virtue of agreement for sale dated 4-4-1983 along with incomplete structure and thereafter the said structure was completed by spending Rs.5 lacs and opponent's wife is in possession of the same. It is case of the opponent/respondent that the applicant/appellant refused to transfer and convey the said property in the name of the opponent's wife, whereby she filed a suit for specific performance of contract bearing No.403/87. The son of the opponent supported the contention made by his late father. It is case of the respondent that the matter regarding ownership/title of the demised premises is pending before the Civil Court and the learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title. Reliance was placed on the case of Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and others 1983 SCMR 1064. The dispute in respect of the property in question is subject matter of litigation before the Courts of law and until Civil Court gives its findings the Rent Controller is unable to determine whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. I have examined the order of the learned Rent Controller which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and needs no interference. Event the honourable Supreme Court in the case reported in 1983 SCMR 1064 has held that the Rent Controller need not go into disputed question of title. Leading of evidence by parties before Rent Controller on issue of title not desired-proper course for Rent Controller in circumstances would be to decide issue against landlord and advise landlord to get his title established from a Court of general jurisdiction before seeking ejectment. It is further held that landlord can reagitate 'matter before Rent Controller against and decision of Rent Controller taken earlier would not constitute res judicata or preclude him from reagitating matter before him once again. Resultantly, I dismiss this First Rent Appeal and maintain the order of the learned Addl. Controller of Rent. H.B.T./Z-11/K Appeal dismissed.