Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑89 of 1972, decided on 27th February 1973.
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi, dated the 2nd of October 1972, in Petition No. 209 of 1971).
Art. 186‑High Court directing that prior to their being entitled to take proceedings for recovery of rent from tenants (petitioners), respondents must furnish security in amount representing rental value of disputed shops and furnish accounts of rent received to Evacuee Trust Board‑Petitioners' contention that they were tenants under Custodian and paid rent to him and High Court's impugned order would enable respondents to file suits for recovery of rent and ejectment against them, held, not appealing‑Tenants could raise legal objection against entitlement of respondents to recover rent in proceedings when brought against them‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Naeemuddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 27th February 1973.
The petitioners are aggrieved by an interim order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karachi, whereby in a pending writ petition, it has been directed that the writ petitioner before the High Court, namely, Mahara, Ganeshpuri, respondent No. 1 in this petition, should furnish security to the extent of Rs. 7,620, representing the rental of the shops, and submit an account to the Secretary, Evacuee Trust Board of the receipts of rent every month, after which he shall be entitled to take proceedings for the recovery of the rent from the tenants. The petitioners, who are tenants of some of the; shops in the disputed property, have challenged this order on the apprehension that this would lead to suits for recovery of rents and ejectment against them by the aforesaid respondent under the cover of the High Court's order. Their stand is that they are tenants under the Custodian and paying rent to him. We are unable to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. As tenants, they have to pay rent of the property, but if they have any legal objection to urge against the entitlement of the respondent to recover rent from them, they can raise that objection in the proceedings that may be brought against them in this behalf, which will have to be determined on merits according to law.
This petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer