Find a Lawyer

First Rent Appeal No.662 of 1986, decided on 17th November, 1986.

---Ss. 15 & 21--Ejectment--Execution proceedings--Points raised by tenant were considered and his appeal dismissed- -Ejectment order neither shown to have been obtained by fraud nor suffering from any ' illegality--Case becoming final and execution proceedings not suffering from any error--Order of writ of possession also calling for no interference--Interference declined in circumstances.-

Syed Sibghatullah Hamid for Appellant.

Muzammil Siddiqui for Respondent.

This is an appeal against the order dated 10th September, 1986, passed by the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi (South) in execution proceedings.

Briefly the facts are that the rent case No.4629/82 against the appellant was filed and on 12-3-1984 the rent application was allowed and appellant was directed to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent. On 8-4-1985 execution application No.4/85 was filed before the Rent Controller. In the meanwhile, appellant filed F. R. A. No. 318 of 1985 in the High Court which was dismissed in limine by an order dated 19-5-1985. Consequently the order of the Dent Controller passed on 12-3-1984 was maintained.

The respondent after the dismissal of the first rent appeal filed a civil suit No.260/86 in the court of XIII Senior, Civil Judge, Karachi. The same was also dismissed. He went in appeal which was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, IV (South) Karachi on 17-5-1986.

I have heard Mr. S.S. Hamid for the appellant. It is contended by the learned counsel that by an agreement dated 7-4-1984, the old tenancy does not exist and the writ of possession has been obtained by fraud, therefore, under section 12(2) C P C the order is not in accordance with the law.

Mr. Muzammil appearing for the respondent submitted that all these points were taken into consideration at the time of disposal of first rent appeal and the purpose of filing this appeal is to frustrate the execution.

The rent application was allowed. The first rent appeal was dismissed in limine. All these points which are being argued now were considered by this Court and the observations made are as under:-

"Now, so far as the impugned order is concerned, no fault could be found with it and the same is according to law. As regards acceptance of rent or any agreement for future tenancy of increase in rent may state that I am not concerned with it. This question can be raised in proper proceedings, if necessary.

I, therefore, dismiss this appeal in limine".

Mr. S.S. Hamid's contention is that this Court while disposing of the first rent appeal observed that question of future tenancy of increase of rent can be raised in proper proceedings, if necessary. On this analogy respondent filed civil suit which was dismissed and finally in revision application this Court had remanded the case back. However, the rent case has no bearing on the Civil Suit between the parties. The question before me is that rent case has become final and eviction order is to be executed according to law. I do not find any error in the execution proceedings and the order of writ of possession calls for no interference as ejectment order was either not obtained by fraud nor suffers from any illegality. This first rent appeal is dismissed in limine.

M.Y.H./B-24/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.