2001 PLP 2022 (SCMR)
SADAT ALI BAIG‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BUX ILLAHI‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2022 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mamoon Kazi, JJ |
| Parties | SADAT ALI BAIG‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BUX ILLAHI‑‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2022 (SCMR)?
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 2001 PLP 2022 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mamoon Kazi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2022 (SCMR) (SADAT ALI BAIG‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BUX ILLAHI‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 30th December, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh dated 28‑5‑1997 passed in R.F.A. 51 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S.15(2)(iii)(c)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant on ground of infringement of the terms and conditions of the tenancy‑‑‑Rent Controller on the basis of evidence on record had concluded that tenant/respondent hail infringed the terms and conditions of the tenancy‑‑‑High Court while reversing the finding of the Rent Controller, had made no reference to the evidence recorded in the case, but had simply observed that the petitioner/landlord had failed to prove his case within the provisions of the law‑‑‑Contention of the petitioner/landlord with regard to infringement of terms and conditions of the tenancy, required examination‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner instituted a rent case against the respondent seeking his ejectment from the premises on the ground of infringement of the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller by order, dated 23‑9‑1991: However, on appeal filed by the respondent the order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision and parties were allowed to lead further evidence in the case. After remand of the case, the Rent Controller held that the wall intervening between the shops and the open space let out to the respondent was demolished which amounted to infringement of the terms and condition of the tenancy. On appeal the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller holding that the petitioners failed to establish their case within the parameters of section 15(2)(iii)(c) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
2. In seeking leave to appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Judge in Chambers while reversing the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of existence of wall between the shop and open space let out to the respondent, did not advert to the evidence on record and simply made reference to the decided cases on the question of law argued before him. The learned counsel contended that whether a wall existed between the shop and the open space let out to the respondent, was a question of fact which could only be resolved by reference to the evidence on record and not to the case‑law discussed by the learned Judge in Chambers in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel took us through the order of the Rent Controller wherein the Rent Controller after referring to the evidence led by the parties came to a categorical finding that there was a wall existing between the shop and the open space let out by the petitioners to the respondent at the commencement of the tenancy which was subsequently demolished by the tenant. The Rent Controller on the basis of evidence reached the conclusion that there was infringement of the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The learned Judge in Chambers while reversing the finding of the Rent Controller, made no reference to the evidence recorded in the case and simply observed that the petitioners failed to prove their case within the provisions of the law. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners requires examination and leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted. H.B.T./S-120/S Leave to appeal granted.