Lawyers Directory Listing
صرف 1000 روپے میں 10 وکلاء تک کی براہِ راست رابطہ تفصیلات حاصل کریں اور کال یا واٹس ایپ کے ذریعے موزوں قانونی ماہر سے رابطہ کر کے اپنا معاملہ پورے اعتماد کے ساتھ آگے بڑھائیں۔
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 271‑K and 278‑K of 1985, decided on 20th August, 1985.
(From the judgment of Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 19‑5‑1985 in Civil Revision Application No. 121 of 1982).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 9‑‑Dispossession from land under lease‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider, inter alia, whether requirements of S. 9 of Act (1 of 1877) as enumerated in case reported as 1982 S C M R 741 had been satisfied.
Riaz v. Razi Muhammad 1982 S C M R 741 cited.
Abdul Hafeez Memon, Advocate Supreme Court with Muzaffar Ali Khan, Bar‑at‑Law A. H. Memon, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Dastigir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nasim Ahmed Farooqi, Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th August, 1985.
These two petitions arise out of the same judgment of the Sind High Court, dated 19‑5‑1985; whereby two Civil Revisions filed by the petitioners herein, were dismissed. A decree passed against them by the learned trial Court in a joint suit filed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act (No. 1) of 1877, whereby the petitioners owners/lessors were directed to deliver possession of their land under lease (which in the first case had admittedly expired at the relevant time) was affirmed.
2. For the purpose of this order it will suffice to reproduce the salient facts as narrated in the opening part of the impugned judgment. They are‑‑
"The respondent No. 1 (in C.P. 271 of 1985) took on lease the agricultural land admeasuring 487‑10 Acres, in Deh Soomra and Keti, Taluka Hala, District Hyderabad as mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the plaint, from the applicants in civil Revision No. 121/82/ Defendant 1 to 5 in the Suit through Registered deed, dated 25‑7‑1969 for 5 years commencing from Rabi 1969‑70 and ending Kharif 1973‑74, at the yearly lease money of Rs.50,000. Respondent No. 1 was also put in possession of the land at the time of execution of lease‑deed. The applicants in the lease‑deed had also authorised respondent No. 1 to sub‑lease the land to anyone else or transfer the same except to such persons as were the enemies of the applicants. Respondent No. 1, subsequently, took with himself respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as sub‑lessees through an agreement, dated 4‑3‑1970, and all these respondents were enjoying possession of the suit land until they were unlawfully and without process of law ousted there from on 1‑11‑1974. It may be mentioned that respondent No. 1 had paid the entire lease‑money for the whole period of lease and no amount was outstanding as arrears against him. It was also alleged that applicant No. 1 did also execute another agreement of lease in respect of the same land for a further period of seven years to commence after the expiry of the first lease period. It was further alleged that through other lease agreements registered on 26‑2‑1973, 8‑3‑1973 and 21‑6‑1973 the applicants in Revisions No. 138/82/ Defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the Suit leased out the other lands measuring 340‑48 Acres as Schedule 'R' in favour of respondents in Revision 138/x2 and simultaneously put the said respondents in possession thereof, which continued in their possession until 14‑11‑1974 when the said applicants in collusion with applicant (Haji Nawab Dawood) dispossessed them without their consent and without due process of law. Ultimately, on 1‑11‑1974 and 14‑11‑1974 the applicants in both the Revisions illegally and forcibly ousted the respondents from the lands described in Schedules 'A' and 'B', respectively. Respondent No. 1 in Revision 121/82 sent a number of telegrams to the authorities including a telegram to the Prime Minister of Pakistan stating the circumstances therein. It was further alleged that applicant No. 1 started a campaign against the respondents to harass them in one way or the other and he for himself and for the rest of the applicants was attempting to forcibly dispossess the respondents from the suit lands though, to the knowledge of the (applicants), the first lease period was to expire with the expiry of Kharif season of 1974. It was further alleged that all the applicants colluded and conspired with each other to illegally and forcibly dispossess the respondents from the suit land and that Applicant No. 1 (in Revision 121 of 1982) for all the respondents in both the Revisions on 1st and 14th November, 1974 illegally and forcibly dispossessed the respondents in both the Revisions from all the lands comprised in Schedules 'A' and 'B'. Consequently, a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for the restoration of the possession of the suit land was filed in the IIIrd Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. The applicants Nos. 1 to 4 in Revision No. 121 of 1982, who put in their appearance and filed their written statement, denied the alleged leasing out the agricultural land to respondent No. 1 and the execution of any lease‑deed and putting the respondent No. 1 into possession of the suit land. It was also denied that respondent No. 1 was authorised to sublease the lands to anyone else. It was also contended that the suit was not maintainable under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and that it was under valued and barred by Martial Law Regulation 115, and also bad for mis-joinder of the causes of action and for non‑joinder of parties. Applicants Nos. 1 and 3 in Revision No. 138 of 1982/ Defendants Nos. 6 and 8 in the suit also filed written statement. While denying the averments of the plaint it was specifically pleaded that the respondents did not pay the lease money which was due on 15‑1‑1975 in the sum of Rs.15,625 and that respondent No. 1 being interested in the lands of applicants Nos. 1 to 5 in Revision No. 121 of 1982, had taken the lands of applicants Nos. 1 and 3 in Revision 138 of 1982 on lease on account of water and other facilities. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the respondents were not dispossessed from the land in question by the said applicants/ defendants 6 and 8 but the land of the said applicants was abandoned by the respondents because they did not continue in the possession of the lands of applicants Nos. 1 to 5 in Civil Revision 121/82. It was further pleaded that applicant No. 8 had cultivated the lands and spent Rs.44,186 but he could not get the crop due to an injunction granted by the civil Court and the same was taken away by the Haries of the land.
3. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:‑‑
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in law
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form
(3) Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness
(4) Whether the suit is improperly valued and plaint is insufficiently stamped
(5) Whether the suit is barred under provisions of M.L.R. 115.
(6) Whether the plaintiff No. 1 had sub‑leased Schedule 'A' Lands to plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and that they remained in possession and enjoyment thereof with plaintiff No. 1
(7) Whether plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 were unlawfully dispossessed and deprived of the Schedule 'A' Lands by defendant No. 1 in collusion with other defendants on 1‑11‑1974
(8) Whether defendant No. 1 in collusion with other defendants forcibly ousted plaintiffs Nos. 4, 5 and 6 from Schedule 'B' Land on 14‑11‑1974
(9) Whether defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are entitled to costs under section 35‑A, C.P.C. If yes, how much
(10) What should the Decree be
The respondents to prove their case examined respondent No. 1 (Exh. 277), Muzaffaruddin (Exh. 288), Rajab Ali (Exh. 300) and Akbar Hussain (Exh. 303). On behalf of the applicants Nos. 1 to 4. Applicant No. 1 (Exh. 357) examined himself and their witnesses Allah Warayo (Exh. 373), Abbas Ali Tapedar (Exh. 380). Applicant No. 5 in Revision. No. 121/82 and applicant No. 2 in Revision No. 138/82 were declared ex parte. Other applicants in Revision No. 138/82 did not, however, lead any evidence.
The learned Civil Judge by his judgment and decree, dated 30th March, 1982 found issues Nos. 1 to 5 and 9 in the negative and issues Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the affirmative and decreed the suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act with the direction that possession of the suit land as comprised in Schedule 'A' be returned to plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respondents in Revision No. 121 of 1982, and the lands mentioned in Schedule 'B' be restored to plaintiffs Nos. 4, 5 and 6 respondents in Revision No. 138 of 1982, till the plaintiffs respondents in both the Revisions are not evicted in due course of law. Against the said judgment and decree, two Civil Revisions have been filed by the applicants /landlords in respect of lands mentioned in Schedules 'A' and 'B' being R.A. No. 121/82 and 138/82, respectively."
4. Leave to appeal has been sought from the said judgment of High Court. We after having heard the learned counsel from both the sides consider it a fit matter for examination of the various questions raised in these petitions. In particular, the following and related questions would also be examined:‑‑
"Whether the requirements of section 9 of the Specific Relief Act as enumerated in Riaz v. Razi Muhammad 1982 S C M R 741 have been satisfied; Whether the suit suffered from multifariousness and other reasons of misjoinder and whether there is any bar, as contended from the respondent side in this Court, to examine this question at the present Stage; Whether in case of lands in Schedule 'A' the lease period having expired; the land was not in law to be treated as in possession of the petitioners on account of specific provisions in that behalf in, the lease agreement. In other words, whether the lessors would not for purpose of section 9 be deemed to be in possession when the so‑called incident of the respondent's dispossession took place; Whether it was not necessary for the plaintiffs respondents to establish juridical possession in order to succeed under section 9; Whether as in the present case, when the actual physical possession was with the sub‑lessees, the lessees could at the time of the termination of the lease in their favour, claim any superior or better possession than what the petitioners as owner throughout continued to claim by virtue of the ownership. If not could the lessees maintain a suit under section 9; Whether specific covenant by the lessees in the lease agreement to the effect that possession shall be taken over by the petitioners at the expiry of the lease period, shall not be treated as the continuing consent as required by section 9; Whether the due process of law visualised by section 9 will not include a lessor's right, under a legal agreement, of re‑entry without hinderance on the expiry of the lease; Whether even if the conditions in section 9 were formally satisfied in a case like the present one the trial Court should not have, in exercise of its discretion, declined to grant relief to the plaintiffs‑respondents and whether the consideration would not apply to that part of the suit which relates to the land in Schedule 'B'. And in that context whether ultimately the appeal arising from Civil Petition No. 278 of 1985 would not be liable to be dismissed, notwithstanding the possibility of the same resulting in conflict of judgment vis‑a‑vis the lands in Schedule 'A'; and, lastly, whether the technical pleas raised from either side with regard to the maintainability of the revision in the High Court and or the questions which could or could not be raised therein, merit to be upheld "
Order accordingly.
Security Rs.2,500 in each case. The interim order regarding execution of the decree passed on 1‑6‑1985 shall continue in operation.
The appeals shall be prepared on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary. They shall be fixed for hearing at an early date.
The learned counsel for the parties are directed to file concise statements with particular emphasis on the case‑law separately noted on each point intended to be pressed at the time of the hearing of the appeal.
M. I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer