1987 PLP 611 (SCMR)
Syed MUHAMMAD HAIDER ZAIDI‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAFEEZ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 611 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss.2(f) & 14‑‑'Landlord' definition of‑‑Ejectment‑‑Landlord gifting away demised premises to his wife, continued receiving rent from tenant and on retirement sought ejectment on ground of personal need‑‑Order rejecting ejectment application impugned‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that landlord in meaning of S. 14 of Ordinance read with definition clause under S.2(f) not only includes 'owner of the premises but also person who is for the time being authorised or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises and since petitioner's case fell in second category, he was entitled to respondent's eviction on ground of personal need.‑‑Words and phrases. |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD HAIDER ZAIDI‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAFEEZ‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 611 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 611 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss.2(f) & 14‑‑'Landlord' definition of‑‑Ejectment‑‑Landlord gifting away demised premises to his wife, continued receiving rent from tenant and on retirement sought ejectment on ground of personal need‑‑Order rejecting ejectment application impugned‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that landlord in meaning of S. 14 of Ordinance read with definition clause under S.2(f) not only includes 'owner of the premises but also person who is for the time being authorised or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises and since petitioner's case fell in second category, he was entitled to respondent's eviction on ground of personal need.‑‑Words and phrases. bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 611 (SCMR) (Syed MUHAMMAD HAIDER ZAIDI‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAFEEZ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th May, 1986.
- After having retired from service petitioner applied for respondent's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he required the same for his personal use. The Rent Controller while taking the view in petitioner's favour on issue No. 1 in the case that petitioner was "a competent person to fall within the definition of landlord so as to file the ejectment application" held that he not being the owner of the property was not entitled to file ejectment application under the provisions of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss.2(f) & 14‑‑'Landlord' definition of‑‑Ejectment‑‑Landlord gifting away demised premises to his wife, continued receiving rent from tenant and on retirement sought ejectment on ground of personal need‑‑Order rejecting ejectment application impugned‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that landlord in meaning of S. 14 of Ordinance read with definition clause under S.2(f) not only includes 'owner of the premises but also person who is for the time being authorised or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises and since petitioner's case fell in second category, he was entitled to respondent's eviction on ground of personal need.‑‑[Words and phrases].
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑ Petitioner being the owner of the demised premises let out the same to respondent under a rent‑agreement, dated 25‑3‑1968. In 1974 he gifted the property to his wife but did not inform the respondent about this transaction and continued to recover rent from respondent. It is the admitted position that in spite of the gift of the property in favour of petitioner's wife there was neither any objection by the wife, in fact her consent in this regard, nor by the respondent as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. After having retired from service petitioner applied for respondent's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he required the same for his personal use. The Rent Controller while taking the view in petitioner's favour on issue No. 1 in the case that petitioner was "a competent person to fall within the definition of landlord so as to file the ejectment application" held that he not being the owner of the property was not entitled to file ejectment application under the provisions of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The above view was upheld by Sind High Court and petitioner's appeal was dismissed. Petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, and the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal submits that the learned Judge in the High Court has failed to appreciate that the landlord in the meaning of section 14 of the Ordinance read with the definition clause under section 2(f) not only includes the "owner of the premises" but also the person who is for the time being authorised or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises," and since the petitioner's case fell in the second category he was entitled to respondent's eviction on the grounds that he required the premises for personal use. The plea raised in support of the petition deserves consideration Leave is granted. Security Rs.1,
000. Appeal will be heard on the present record at an early date. It is however open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. M.I./M‑7/S Leave granted