Find a Lawyer

MESSRS BRIGHTLINK MOBILE PHONE AND ACCESSORIES versus MUHAMMAD QAMAR GHANI

ections Sections 15 and 2 (g) of the uc Succession Act (XXXXX of 1925), Section 305 - Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), A XXII, R 4 ten Tenant eviction - Landlord's personal need - Landlord Death - Impact Ten tenant's dispute was that the landlord had died and we could not survive the legal inheritance of the landlord who was only female - the rent controller dismissed the removal request but the appellate court This was legally allowed through tions Section 2. (G) and 15 (2) (vii) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 treated a unit * treated with the landlord and his spouse or his son or daughter the Any impairment of family solidarity and integrity. No need to consider the individual needs of the unit and the landlord's wife, sons or daughters - the tenant can be evicted under the requirement of the landlord to utilize himself and other members of his family well. The deceased landlord will replace the landlord's family member and he or she will be eligible to continue the eviction lawsuit for the landlord's occupation and possession of the survivors of his family. - The law did not distinguish a man's family from a male person, and on the contrary, the use of ona hunger did not result in the death of the landlord because of the enjoyment of the tenant property - the legal heirs had all these priorities. Emphasize that the deceased could be exempt from all persons except those who were the victim's personal Article Article 199 of the Relief Constitution was arbitrary and, unless an unclean decision resulted in injustice or irreparable harm or injury. So madam

P L D 2017 Sindh 409

Before Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, J

Messrs BRIGHTLINK MOBILE PHONE AND ACCESSORIES through Proprietor—Petitioner

versus

MUHAMMAD QAMAR GHANI and 2 others—Respondents

Constitutional Petition No.S-581 of 2009, decided on 25th October, 2016.

(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)—

—Ss. 15 & 2(g)—Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), S. 305—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXII, R.4—Ejectment of tenant— Personal bona fide need of landlord—Death of landlord—Effect— Contention of tenant was that landlord had died and right to we did not survive to the legal heirs of the landlord who were females only— Eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller but same was allowed by the Appellant Court—Validly—Sections 2(g) & 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 had treated the landlord and his spouse or his son or daughter as 'one unit*—No requirement existed to breakdown the solidarity and integrity of the family unit and to consider the individual needs of the landlord’s wife, sons or daughters—Tenant could be evicted for the requirement of landlord for bona fide use of himself and other members of his family—Right to sue did survive to the member of the family of deceased landlord—Members of landlord’s family would take his/her place and they would be competent to continue the suit for eviction initiated by the landlord for his occupation and for occupation of surviving members of his family—Law did not discriminate a female family members from the male family members and vice versa—Right of enjoyment of tenanted property on the ground of bona fide use did not die with the death of landlord—Legal heirs could urge all the contentions which the deceased could have urged except only those which were personal to the deceased—Relief under Art. 199 of the Constitution was discretionary and unless impugned judgment had resulted in injustice or irreparable loss or injury there was no justification for interference—Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. [pp. 412, 413, 414] C, D, E, F&H

M. Siddique Butt v. ADJ, Lahore 2010 CLC 1095; Ahmed Saeed Rizvi v. Janat Bibi 2006 CLC 1848; Husna Begilfn v. Deen Mohammad 1999 CLC 1399 and Rajagopala v. P. Revanna 1974(1) KLJ 425.K. rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan—

—Art. 199—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Scope— Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could only be exercised if impugned order was based on misreading or non-reading of evidence; an erroneous assumption; misapplication of law; excess or abuse of jurisdiction and arbitrary exercise of powers, [p. 411] A

2001 SCMR 338 rel.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan—

—Art. 199—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Scope— Question of fact could not be entertained while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, [p. 413] G

(d) Maxim—

—uActio personalis moritur cum persona”—Meanging. [p. 411] B Haseeb-ur-Rehman for Petitioner.

Amir Aziz Khan, Represented by Asim Aziz Khan for Respondent No.l. # ' .

Date of hearing: 5th October, 2016.

us immigration advocates from Karak lawyer