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

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN versus INAYATULLAH


Section 16 Temporary Rental Order Setting up a preliminary issue on the question of non-compliance with the rent controller, deciding the same and approving the temporary rent order does not comply with the same holder tenants that the central case decision on the merit Is required to comply with the temporary rental order of. Holding, rightly defending and invading the eviction order

1984 C L C 1942

[Karachi]

Before Ajmal Mian, J

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER---‑Appellants

versus

INAYATULLAH‑----Respondent

First Rent Appeal No. 82 of 1983, decided on 1st November, 1983.

Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑----

------S. 16‑Tentative rent order‑Non‑compliance of‑Rent Controller framing preliminary issue on question of relationship, deciding same and passing tentative rent order‑Tenant not complying same‑Held Tenants were duty bound to comply with tentative rent order till decision of main case on merits‑Non‑compliance, held, rightly followed by striking off defence and order of eviction.

Mst. Akhtar Jehan Begum and 4 others v. Muhammad Azam Khan P L D 1983 S C 1 fol.

Mumtaz Ali Siddlgui for Appellants.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 1st November, 1983.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal against the order dated 23‑8‑1983 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Jacobabad, in Rent Applica tion No. 74/1980, previous No. 5/1975 ordering striking off appellants defence on the ground of non‑compliance of the tenative rent order dated 24‑5‑1983. The appellants being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present appeal.

2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui learned counsel for the appellants has urged as follows :‑----

(i) That the property in fact belongs to the Municipal Committee and, therefore, the respondent had no right to file ejectment application.

(ii) That the rent application filed by the previous landlord through whom the respondent is claiming, was rejected on the ground that there was no relationship.

3. It is an admitted position that the appellants till today have not complied with the above tentative rent order. The Rent Controller had framed a preliminary issue on the question of relationship which was decided after recording of the evidence and hearing of the parties by an order dated 25‑4‑1983. After that tentative rent order was passed. The appellants were duty bound to comply with the above tentative rent order till decision of the main case on merits. Since they have not complied with the tentative rent order, the points raised by Mr. Siddiqui cannot be agitated in view of latest pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Akhter Jehan Begum and 4 others v. Muhammad Azam Khan (P L D 1983 S C 1). It may also be mentioned that rent case was filed as far back as in 1975 and we are in 1983.

The appeal is dismissed in limine.

M. B. A. Appeal 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
immigration advocates email from Shadiwal 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.