Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 503‑K of 1983, decided on 12th January, 1984.

(From the order dated 12‑9‑198'3 of the Sind High Court (Bench at Sukkur) passed in F.R.A. No. 61 of 1983).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15 ‑‑Ejectment on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal use of landlord‑‑Order of ejectment passed by Rent Controller and upheld by appellate Court found to be unexceptionable‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Naraindas, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A.A. Dastgir, Advocate‑‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Abdul Karim Lakhan, Advocate: Supreme Court instructed by S. Anwar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of Rearing: 12th January, 1984.

The petitioner, a tenant, is aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal by the Sind High Court on 12‑9‑1983 from an order of ejectment dated 30‑5‑1983 passed by the Rent Controller, Larkana.

2. The petitioner had opposed the ejectment application, which had been filed on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal use of the landlord, by denial of the very title of the landlord and of receipt of any notice from him and consequently the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. His pleas, however, failed before both the Courts below.

3. The petitioner had in his evidence admitted that the respondent landlord was a transferee of the property from the Settlement authorities in the year 1980‑81. His denial of the title was, however, simply based on some litigation going on in civil Court concerning that transfer. Since he had not shown that the transfer made in favour of the respondent had been revoked, or suspended by the Settlement authorities, he could not deny the respondent's title, nor could the Courts below go behind the transfer document in the present proceeding. His denial as regards receipt of notice was also repelled by both the Courts on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties. Since he admits his having been in occupation of the premises at the time of transfer, he was clearly liable to pay rent. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is nevertheless not tenant within the meaning of the term defined under section 2(j) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and that he could be a trespasser, for which the remedy of the respondent was in a civil Court. But no such specific plea had been taken before the Rent Controller, where, on the other hand, his plea that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed was mainly based on his denial of the landlord's title.

4. After hearing learned counsel, we find no merit in this petition which we accordingly dismiss.

S. Q. 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.