2005 PLP 309 (SCMR)

HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.‑‑‑ This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 23‑4‑2003 in High Court Appeal No.74 of 2002 (Sindh Industrial Trading Estates Ltd. v. Muhammad Ilyas and another), passed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby the said appeal was dismissed maintaining the order, dated 23‑1‑2002 of the learned Judge in Chambers in SMA No. 111 of 1996.

2. Facts of the case need not be‑ reiterated as the same have been stated in the memo. of petition as well as in the impugned judgment.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondent was a lessee of the petitioner and he was given the `said plot on lease under the terms and conditions stated in the lease agreement which he could riot comply with and further that the legal heirs of the deceased lessee the respondent cannot be allowed to inherit tenancy right, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. .

5. We do not find merit and substance in the said contentions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show us any provision whereunder the legal heirs of the deceased cannot inherit the tenancy right of lease. Learned Division Bench of the High Court has observed.‑‑‑ "The learned Advocate for the appellant did not point out any clause in the Lease Deed whereby appellant has been authorized to terminate the lease, in case of death of the lessee or that the right accrued to the lessee/tenant cannot be inherited to the legal heirs. In reply to our query the learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the SITE in case of death of the tenant mutates the names of the legal heirs of the said tenant in respect of the properties allocated to them. He further stated that since in the instant case the deceased had failed to put property in use in terms of the lease and further that the very property has been got allotted by misrepresentation the appellant is not bound to mutate the names of the legal heirs of the deceased. We are afraid that the contention of the learned. Advocate for the appellant has any force. We .are of the view that the property in question was one of the assets left by the deceased and the legal heirs inherited the same ‑as admittedly property stood in the name of the deceased at the time of his death and even today same stands in the record of the appellant in the name of deceased. The legal heirs inherited the property in question, with whatever right deceased had in it, and if there is any defect in the title. the legal heirs had inherited the defective title and merely because the property has been mutated in the, names of the legal heirs of the deceased does not mean in any way that the defect, if any, initially intact to the said property has been wiped of nor the same disentitles the appellant to take action, if any, they intend to take against the legal heirs. .In the matter pertaining to letters of administration the Court only determined the question about the assets left by the deceased and inherited by the legal heirs and in appropriate cases undertook to investigate adverse claim between the legal heirs in the said proceedings, but merely because the letter of administration has been issued, the same does not tantamount to confirming title on the legal heirs:

7. We do not find any legal or factual infirmity with the impugned judgment, therefore, leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed. S.A.K./S‑58/S Leave refused. .