1999 PLP 103 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MUSLIM — Petitioner Versus MAZHAR MALIK — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 103 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, C. J. and Mamoon Kazi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUSLIM — Petitioner Versus MAZHAR MALIK — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 103 (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 1999 PLP 103 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, C. J. and Mamoon Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 103 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MUSLIM — Petitioner Versus MAZHAR MALIK — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghularn Qadir Jatoi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rashid Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th February, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 24-7-1997 passed in F.R.A. No. 31/94).
S. 15
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by respondent
Rent Controller ordered ejectment of respondent while High Court setting aside order of ejectment dismissed ejectment application
Petitioner's contention was to the effect that notwithstanding the fact that tenancy agreement had been executed by father of petitioner, nevertheless, the same Court not detract from the fact that petitioner was real owner of property in question and, therefore, landlord in respect of demised premises
High Court, thus, was in error while dismissing petitioner's application on said legal point
Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether view taken by High Court was correct in circumstances of case.
Judgment & Decree
MAMOON KAZI, J.
The petitioner through his father and. attorney filed a rent application before the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi (South) alleging that the respondent had committed default in payment of rent and had also made alterations in the demised premises, thus, imparing their value and utility. The rent as per agreement dated 28-7-1986, had been fixed as Rs.4,400 per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.6,000 per month.
2. The application was resisted by the respondent who disputed the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. The other allegations were also denied.
3. The learned Controller after determining the preliminary issue in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was the landlord of the premises and the respondent was his tenant, allowed the said application directing the respondent to vacate the premises.
4. The respondent filed appeal before the High Court of Sindh which was dealt with by the learned Judge in Chambers and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside as it was held by the learned Judge that no relationship of the landlord and the tenant existed between the parties.
5. Admittedly, the tenancy agreement had been executed by Muhammad Ishaque, the father of the petitioner as the landlord of the premises, who had subsequently filed the rent application as attorney of the petitioner. The learned Judge in Chambers was, therefore, of the view that even if the petitioner was the real owner of the premises there was no privity of contract between him and the respondent and consequently the petitioner had no locus standi to file the ejectment application.
6. Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that notwithstanding the fact that the tenancy agreement had been executed by Muhammad Ishaque, the father of the petitioner, nevertheless, the same cannot detract from the fact that the petitioner is the real owner of the property in question and, therefore, the landlord in respect of the demised premises. Consequently, according to the learned counsel, the learned Judge in Chambers was in error while dismissing the petitioner's application on the said technical ground.
7. Leave is granted to examine whether the view taken by the learned Judge in Chambers was correct under the circumstances of the case. A A./M-164/S Leave granted.