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.
First Rent Appeal No. 825 of 1980, decided on 26th April, 1984.
--‑‑S. 19 (5)‑Ejectment application‑Admission by Rent Con troller‑Subsequent dismissal without taking evidence for want of locus standi‑Validity of such order‑Rent application once admit ted, held, could not be dismissed by Rent Controller, who in such case is left with no option but to receive evidence first of applicant and his witnesses and then of respondent and his witnesses as en visaged by S. 19(3) of Ordinance and to record finding on each issue as required under subsection (5) of S. 19.
Ikram Ahmed Ansari for Appellant.
K.B. Bhutto for Respondent No. 1.
Hasan Asghar Rizvi for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
Vakil Ahmed Siddiqui for Respondent No. 6.
Dates of hearing: 9th February and 26th April, 1984.
This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 has been filed against the order, dated 29th September, 1980 passed by the XIVth Civil Judge and Rent Controller No. V1, Karachi whereby be has dismissed the Rent Case No. 181/1976.
The rent case has been dismissed on the ground that appellant has no locus standi to pursue the rent case.
I have heard Mr. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Hasan Asgbar Rizvi, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 to 5, Mr. K. B. Bhutto, Advocate for the respondent No. 1, and Mr. Vakil Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate for respondent No. 6, at length. The learned Rent Controller has admitted the rent application and evidence of Mr. Shaikh Mubarak Ali was recorded on the side of the applicant and written state ment was filed. The issues were framed. Respondent was not yet examined the parties made applications on the basis of which the learned Rent Controller dismissed the rent application as stated above. During the arguments it has been pointed out that procedure as contemplated under section 19 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance,. 1979 has not been adopted by the Rent Controller. Learned Advocates for the parties have agreed that this case be remanded back to Rent Controller.
The Rent Controller in my view cannot dismiss the application once he has admitted. He has no option but to receive the evidence first of the applicant and his witnesses and then of the respondent and his witnesses as envisaged under section 19(3) of the Ordinance. He has to record findings on each issue separately as provided under subsection 5 of the section 19 of the Ordinance. This mandatory provision has been violated, therefore, I set aside the impugned order of the Rent Controller and direct him to proceed with the case and give an opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence and finally decide this case within six months on merits and according to law.
M. B. A. Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer