Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑III of 1981, decided on 14th February, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 22nd March, 1981 passed in Second Appeal No. 233 of 1979).

‑‑ Art. 185(3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(2)‑Ejectment on ground of default in payment of rent‑Leave to appeal‑Granted to consider whether amount of rent for a period of three months outstanding against tenant was adjustable against security deposit lying with petitioner‑Landlord under agreement of tenancy which had already expired by efflux of time.

Muhammad Yousaf v. Abdullah. N L R 1981 Civil S C 254 ; Abdul Aziz Beg v. Mushtaq Ahmad Shaikh 1980 S C M R 834 Muhammad Maudood Ansari v. Shafi Ahmed C. A. No. 196 of 77 ref.

Mirza Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advo cate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

V. A. Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record and Abdul Majid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 14th December, 1981.

This is a landlord's Petition for Special Leave to Appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court, dated 22‑3‑1981, whereby the Second Appeal filed by the Respondent/tenant against his order of eviction was allowed. and the Applica tion for eviction of the petitioner was dismissed.

The dispute between the parties turned on the question whether non payment of rent for a period of three months amounting to Rs. 450 was adjustable against security deposit of Rs. 380, lying with the Petitioner/' landlord under the agreement of tenancy which had earlier expired by efflux of time in 1972.

The learned Single Judge was presented with two decisions of this Court reported as Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdullah (N L R 1981 Civil‑254) and Abdul Aziz Beg v. Mushtaq Ahmad Shaikh (19805 C M R 834)

On the perusal of these decisions, the Learned Judge was of the opinion that these two decisions of this Court laid down conflicting propositions of law, inasmuch as in the former, it was held that an agreement which has expired by efflux of time does not govern the relationship between the landlord and tenant, which will thereafter be regulated by the statutory provisions of the Rent Ordinance, and in the latter it was held that the terms and conditions of the agreement of tenancy, would continue to remain operative even after the termination of tenancy agreement by efflux of time. Confronted with this position, the learned Special Judge chose to follow the dictum laid down in the case of Muhammad Yousuf, referred to above, on the ground that the said case wa3 decided subsequent in time to the other case of this Court. Thus allowing adjustment of the security deposit, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that no default was committed by the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in Muhammad Maudood Ansari v. Shafl Ahmed Civil Appeal No. 196 of 1977 in which a Bench of this Court constituted by two learned Judges, noticed this conflict of opinion in this Court and further referred to the case of‑ Alif Din v. Khadim Hussain (N L R 1981 Civil 9) and Muhammad Younas Malik v. Mst. Zahid Irshad (1980 S C M R 184) and directed, that in view of the conflict of decisions between the Benches of this Court, the said appeal be referred to be heard by a larger Bench so that the point of law be settled authoritatively.

In view of the above, a case for leave to appeal has been made and we accordingly grant the same to the petitioner. He shaft furnish security in the sum of Rs. 2,000. The appeal shall be heard on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if arty. This appeal be fixed for hearing alongwith Civil Appeal No. 196 of 1977 Muhammad Maudood Ansari v. Shaff Ahmad.

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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