Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 395‑K of 1985, decided on 12th December, 1985.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.16‑ Petitioner sub‑tenant of premises in dispute, inducted to a part of premises with permission of landlord, paying rent first to original tenant and then depositing same in Court‑‑On failure of original tenant to comply with tentative rent order, Rent Controller striking off defence and ordering vacation of building‑‑Petitioner's appeal challenging order of Rent Controller to handover vacant possession, dismissed by High Court‑‑Contention of petitioner that High Court failed to appreciate that petitioner was a sub‑tenant in respect of a portion of disputed premises in her possession with express consent of landlord and he had been paying rent not to landlord but to original tenant who was for purposes of law her landlord had since petitioner had denied relationship of landlord and tenant between herself and original landlord a' it was incumbent upon Rent Controller to decide this question as a preliminary issue before ordering her eviction from premises occupied by her as sub‑tenant‑‑Plea raised deserving consideration‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention.
Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Ahmadullah Farooqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th December, 1985.
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH,
J.‑‑Facts briefly stated are that Mrs. Fatima Ashraf, the first respondent, by an agreement, dated 1‑12‑1975 let out the premises in dispute to National Construction Company, the second respondent, on monthly rent of Rs.5,700. The second respondent‑Company afterwards sub‑let the premises allegedly with the permission of the first respondent to Mrs. Shahnaz Sehgal, petitioner herein, and two others who are not parties to this petition. Later, the first respondent made an application for ejectment of second respondent Company from the premises and joined the sub‑tenants as parties. During the pendency of this application first respondent applied to the Rent Controller for a direction to be issued to second respondent Company and the sub‑tenants under section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to deposit rent in Court. In these proceedings petitioner contended that she had paid rent in respect of premises sub‑let to her to the second respondent‑Company at the rate of Rs.1,800 P.M. up to July, 1977, and, there after, she was depositing rent in the Court of Rent Controller in Miscellaneous Rent Case No. 272 of 1978. The other sub‑tenants also made the assertion to the same effect. Learned Rent Controller, however, took the view that 'leaving the above contentions and the circumstances, the second‑respondent being the original tenant of the first respondent was liable to deposit the rent and accordingly
directed the second respondent by the order, dated 19th April, 1980 to deposit arrears of rent from December, 1976 to March, 1980 amounting to Rs.2,28,000 before 10th August, 1980 and also future rent at the rate of Rs.5,700 p.m. from April, 1980 onwards before 10th of each succeeding English Calendar month.
On the failure of the second respondent to deposit rent as above, learned Rent Controller struck off the defence of the said respondent and directed by the order, dated 8‑2‑1981 that the vacant possession of the disputed premises be handed over to the first respondent.
Petitioner challenged this order in an appeal before Sind High Court, but it was dismissed by the judgment, dated 6‑8‑1985, and it is in these circumstances that petitioner filed this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Rent Controller and the High Court have failed to appreciate that the petitioner is a sub‑tenant in respect of a portion of the disputed premises in her possession with express consent of the first respondent, and she has been paying rent not to the first respondent, but to the second respondent‑company, which for the purpose of rent laws is petitioner's landlord; and since petitioner had denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between her and the first respondent, it was incumbent on the Rent Controller to decide this question as a preliminary issue in the case before directing petitioner's eviction from the premises occupied by her as a sub‑tenant.'
The above plea amongst others deserves consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal, Security. Rs.2,000.
The preparation of the Paper Book be expedited so that the appeal be heard at an early date.
Petitioner shall not be evicted from the portion of the disputed premises in her possession as sub‑tenant, provided she continues to deposit future rent by 10th of each succeeding English Calendar month in the Court of Rent Controller where she has been depositing rent so far.
M. Y. H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer