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.
(exercising Revisional Powers under section 15 of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953 at Karachi) and others-Respondents
Writ Petition No. 317 of 1956, decided on 5th November 1956.
S. 6-Relates to repairs not to re-construction or re-building-Order asking landlord to effect repairs without jurisdiction-Case for writ Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 170.
Section 6 of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act nowhere authorises the Rent Controller to entertain applications for re-construction or grant permission for the same.
To order the landlord to carry out repairs is beyond the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The section nowhere authorises the Rent Controller to decide the question of responsibility for the repairs. All that he has to do is to grant or refuse permission to the tenant to make repairs and deduct the cost from the rent.
Where the landlord was ordered to carry out reconstruc tion of roof of leased premises, the order was quashed and a writ issued.
S. Y. Khwaja for Petitioner.
A. A.-G. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mahmood Sere for Respondent No. 3.
-The petition is in respect of the building known as Speechly Building. Respondent No. 3 is one of the tenants of the building. In the lease-deed executed by the respondent No. 3 and Mst. Hanifa Bai the predecessor in title of the petitioner, the former undertook the responsi bility of all repairs.
On 15th May 1954, respondent No. 3 filed an application before respondent No. 2 (Additional Rent Controller) under section 6 of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953, in respect of repairs to the whole roof of the said building. Respondent No. 2 held that it was not a question of repairs but that of re-construction of the whole subject-matter of the roof and consequently he held that it was not covered by the lease-deed. He therefore ordered the predecessor in title of the petitioner to re-build the roof within two months from the date of the order failing which, the respondent No. 3 would be entrusted to do the job at her cost. Against this order Mst. Hanifa Bai filed a Revision Application before respondent No. 1, (Chief Judge, Karachi Small Causes Court), who by his order, dated 14th October 1955 dismissed the same and thus confirmed the order of respondent No. 2. Against this order she filed a writ petition on 9th November 1955 which was dismissed on the ground that she in the meanwhile, having sold the building had no subsisting interest in the petition. Thereafter the present petitioner who had purchased the building, was made a party before respondent No. 2 and the above order was sought to be executed against him. He has therefore filed this petition.
We have heard the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and. the learned A. A.-G. on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. and we have reached the conclusion that the order of respondent No. 1 confirming the order of respondent No. 2 cannot be maintained, it being without jurisdiction. The only section permitting respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to deal with such matters is section 6 of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act of 1953. It reads as under:
"A tenant may, after notice to the landlord make necessary repairs or repairs usually made to premises in the locality and deduct the cost thereof from the rent Provided that -
(a) Such cost shall not exceed one and a half per centum of the total cost of construction within the meaning of Clause (c) of subsection (2) of section 2, and
(b) the previous permission of the Rent Controller shall be obtained to the making of the repairs."
Thus all that the relevant part of this section provides is, that a tenant wanting to make repairs, must obtain previous permission of the Rent Controller before he does it. The section nowhere authorises the Rent Controller to decide the question of responsibility for the repairs. All that he has to do is to grant or refuse permission. Here, what the Rent Controller has done is to order the landlord viz. the petitioner, to carry out the repairs which is obviously beyond his jurisdiction.
The order of the Rent Controller is vitiated on another ground also. The permission which the Rent Controller can grant under section 6 is for necessary repairs or repairs usually. made to premises in the locality and no more. Here the Rent Controller has himself held that what the premises need is not repairs to the roof but re-building or reconstruc tion of the same. Having found that it was a case of re-construction or re-building and not of repairs, the Rent Controller had no option but to refuse to entertain the application which was for repairs, for section 6 of the Act nowhere authorises the Rent Controller to entertain applica tions for re-construction or grant permission for the same, He has therefore acted in excess of jurisdiction if not without it. We therefore hold that the order of respondent No. 1 confirming the order of respondent No. 2 and dismissing the Revision Application of the predecessor-in-title of the peti tioner, cannot be maintained, it being without and in excess of jurisdiction.
We therefore quash the said order and thus allow the petition with costs.
A. H. Order quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer