Find a Lawyer

‑ Ss. 2 (f) & 15‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 116‑"Landlord"-- Definition‑Landlord and tenant, relationship of ‑Mutwalli, trustee or manager of Wakf property admittedly entitled to receive rent of Waqf property given on lease, held were covered by definition of word 'landlord' given in S. 2(f)‑Bar of S. 116, Evidence Act, 1872 also relevant. ‑[Words and phrases].

Mulla's Muslim Law and Kalimullah v. Amin Hazin and others 1976 S C M R 77 ref.

Hassan Inamullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Ameer Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C. P. S. L. A. No. 541 of 1985).

Abdul Rashid Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in C. P. S. L. A. No. 550 of 1985).

Date of hearing : 20th January, 1986.

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.

‑This order will dispose of (1) C. P. S. L. A. No. 541 of 1985 filed by Yousaf and (2) C. P. S. L. A. No. 550 of 1985 filed by Turab Ali. Both the petitions are directed against the same judgment of the High Court dated 25‑9‑1985, whereby First Rent Appeals Nos.447 and 449 of 1983, filed by the two petitioners respectively, were dismissed: Both the petitions involve a common question of law.

2. Facts briefly are ; that Muhammad Zubair Khan and Hameed Asghar (respondent.,) are Mutwallis, or trustees, of the trust created by late Haji Muhammad Istifa Khan. They filed two separate ejectment applications under section 15(vii) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordi nance, 1979, against Yousaf and Turab Ali (petitioners in the two petitions under consideration), for their eviction from the premises occupied by them in the trust property situated in Garden East, Karachi. Both these applications were based on the ground that the landlords bona fide need the premises in question for their personal use and occupation as they were living in a rented house in North Nazimabad, Karachi.

3. The learned Rent Controller, after recording the evidence produced by the parties, allowed both the petitions and ordered ejectment of the petitioners, vide its order dated 29‑3‑1984. The tenants filed two separate F. R. As. before the High Court which were dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 11‑2‑1985.

Hence the present petitions, one by each tenant.

4. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us that the Mutwallis, are not landlords within the meaning of the word, as used in section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and they had therefore, no locus standi to file the ejectment applications. In Support of this contention he urged that according to the Mulla's Muslim Law the ownership of a Wakf property is vested in the Almighty alone. and the Mutwallis cannot therefore be regarded as landlords of the ‑ premises in question.

5. We are afraid this contention is wholly misconceived. The term 'landlord' has been specifically defined in section 2(f) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and reads as follows :‑

"2. Definitions

.‑In this Ordinance, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject of context :‑

(a) to (e) . . . . . . . .

(f) landlord' means the owner of the premises and includes a person who is for the time being authorized or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises."

A reading of this provision clearly shoves that the word 'landlord' his been given an extending meaning, to include not only the owners but also persons who, for the tithe being, are either authorized or entitled to receive rent in respect of the premises in question and they need not be owners of the same.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that mutwallis or trustees or managers of Wakf properties, and are, inter alia, entitled to receive the rent of the Wakf properties which have been given on lease. He also admitted that the premises in question were let out to the petitioners by the respondents and it is to them that they (i.e. the petitioners) used to pay the monthly rent.

In view of these admissions, it is evident that it does not lie in their mouth to deny that the two respondents are their landlords for the purpose of section 15 of the said Ordinance, not only because the respondents‑mutwallis are covered by the definition of the word 'landlord as given in section 2 (f) of the aforementioned Ordinance, but also because of the bar placed on the petitioners by section 116 of the Evidence Act. Refer to Kalimullah v. Amin Hazin and others (1976 S C M R 77), in which it has been observed as follows :‑

"It seems to us that the High Court has rightly held that once a person has accepted another as his landlord and entered into possession of the premises as such tenant, he cannot be allowed to challenge the title of his landlord."

In view of the above observations, both the, petitions are dismissed as having no merit. No order as to costs.

M. B. A. Petitions 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.