BASHIR AHMAD versus ASHFAQ AHMAD

Sindh Tenant Premises Ordinance 1979 Sections 15 and 21 of the tenancy agreement during the eviction process whereby the tenant had to hand over the occupied land to the landlord within one year, but only after such agreement the rent controller Was burned with another record of. Rebuilding in which the tenants denied the facts of the settlement, the rent controller accepted the parties' agreement and issued a writ of occupancy against the tenant's appeal against the tenant when the court compromised. After that, together with the then judicial diary, evidence was presented by the parties. The tenant's subsequent claim proved that the agreement reached by the parties was different from the agreement agreed by the landlord, not taken by the evidence of the parties and the court draft agreement presented by the landlord. The request record was created. In the event of an agreement between the parties, in fact

1987 M L D 223(1)

[Karachi]

Before Ibadat Yar Khan, J

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ--Appellant

versus

SIDDIQ AHMAD KHAN--Respondent

First Rent Appeal No.454 of 1985, decided on 22nd January, 1987.

Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--

---Ss.14(1) (proviso), 15 & 21(1)--Where landlord had let out a tenement which had fallen vacant and was available to him, his case for ejectment of other tenement, held, was hit by proviso to S.14(1) of Ordinance XVII of 1979 and he could not take advantage of special provision of law viz, S.14(1) of Ordinance XVII of 1979--Landlord, however, could avail remedy available to him under S.15 of same Ordinance.

Asghar Hussain for Appellant.

S.H. Fani for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 22nd January, 1987.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant has read the order of the learned Rent Controller with me. In view of the newly added proviso to section 14 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance this appeal has no merit and is to be dismissed. The newly added proviso runs as under:-

"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply where the landlord has rented out the building after he has retired or attained the age of sixty years or as the case may be, has become widow or orphan."

2. It is admitted position in the case that one of the four tenements in the building had fallen vacant and was available to the landlord which the landlord has let out. This case is, therefore, hit by this proviso. The appellant, therefore, cannot take an advantage of this special provision of law namely section 14(1). Appellant has a remedy under section 15 if he so chooses. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

H.B.T. M-36/K Appeal 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer

Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad

immigration advocate from Sialkot lawyer

Lawyers Directory Listing

Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

BASHIR AHMAD versus ASHFAQ AHMAD

Find a Lawyer Near You