Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

AHMAD BINYAMIN versus AMTUL MANNAN


In section 14 1971 ten tenant, another tenant, Landlady, was 60 years under which the rent of a portion of the house and the tenant controller ordered the tenant's dismissal to exclude the tenant. Do not consider an alleged vacant eviction by another tenant, the first of which is not appropriate in the context of section 14

1982 C L C 1731

[Karachi]

Before Ajmal Mian, J

Haji AHMAD BINYAMIN‑Petitioner

versus

Msr. AMTUL MANNAN‑Respondent

First Rent Appeal No. 39 of 1982, decided on 14th March, 1982

Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑

‑‑S. 14‑Vacation of portion of premises by another tenant Landlady attaining age of 60 years in 1971 and in 1981 sending notice to tenant giving two months to vacate tenement‑ Ejectment application filed by landlady and tenant ordered to be evicted‑Tenant's conten tion that Rent Controller did not consider alleged vacating of ground floor by another tenant,‑ held, prima facie not relevant in context of S. 14.

S. F. Abdullah for Appellant.

Zahiruddin Ahmad for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 14th March, 1982.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against the order dated29‑11‑1981 ordering the appellant's ejectment on the ground that the respondent has attained the age of 60 years.

The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent filed Rent Application No. 1728/81 under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground that she had attained the age of 60 years in the year 1971 and, therefore, was entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the Ordinance. It was also averred that a notice dated 7‑2‑1981 was served on the appellant on 11‑2‑81 giving the appellant two months statutory time for vacating the tenement. It seems that the above application was resisted by the present appellant and inter alia it was pleaded that the application was not competent under the above section of the Ordinance and that the ground in the application was fabri cated one. It further seems that after the closing of the respondent's evidence and before the conclusion of the appellant's evidence, he (appel lant) filed an affidavit dated 19‑8‑1981 alleging therein, that one Mrs. Eick Mohd. Yousuf is vacating the ground floor and that she may be summoned. It also seems that the respondent filed the affidavit through her attorney and also the affidavit of Mrs. Eick Mohd. Yousuf denying the above allegation. The learned Rent Controller after bearing the arguments on the basis of the evidence on record passed the order under appeal. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.

In support of the above appeal, Mr. S. F. Abdullah, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned Rent Controller erred in not taking into consideration the fact that another tenant, namely, Mrs. Eick Mohd. Yousuf was vacating the ground floor which was in fact let out by the respondent to some other person. In furtherance of the above contention, he has referred to para. 4 of Mrs. Eick Mohd. Yousuf's afore said affidavit dated 31‑8‑1981, in which it was averred that she wanted to go abroad for four months with the intention to return/coming back and that her children shall remain at Karachi and they shall continue to live with her mother and family members in the same tenement. The above affidavit does not show that in fact Mrs. Eick Mohd. Yousuf had vacated the premises. Furthermore, prima facie the above allegation was not relevant in context with section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

It may be observed that there is no denial on the part of the appellant of the factum that the respondent had attained the age of 60 years as averred by her in her application and that he had received two months statutory, notice before the filing of the rent case. In view of the matter, the Rent Controller was justified in passing the order under appeal. The appeal has no merit and, therefore, it is dismissed in limine.

However, I grant four months time to the appellant from today on the condition that the appellant shall continue to deposit rent with the Rent Controller for the above period and in case of default, the respondent shall be entitled to file an execution application before the expiry of four months period. Furthermore, in case the appellant fails to vacate on the expiry of above four months period, the Rent Controller shall issue a writ of ejectment without further notice to the appellant.

K M.A. Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
best advocate from Dera Ghazi Khan lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.