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.
First Rent Appeals Nos. 1042 and 1043 of 1986, decided on 2nd December, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 21(1) & 22‑‑Execution proceedings‑‑‑Objection to‑‑Parties other than tenant neither had applied to Rent Controller to become party in execution proceedings nor had filed affidavit to prove that they being tenants of adjacent houses constructed on same plot and being related inter se to the contesting tenant would be affected in execution proceedings‑‑Contention of the tenant that execution proceedings against him would not be proper as in such proceedings other tenants would be affected, held, could not be sustained particularly when all such points had already been discussed by Rent Controller at various stages and there being no confusion about premises in occupation of tenant.
P L D 1983 S C 155 ref.
Maroof Ali Khan for Appellant.
K.B. Bhutto for Respondent.
Dates of hearing: 1st and 2nd December, 1986.
I propose to dispose of First Rent Appeal No. 1042 of 1986 and First Rent Appeal No. 1043 of 1986 by this single order.
2. Appellants in both the appeals are tenants while respondent, Muhammad Siddique, is the landlord.
3. The ejectment case was filed by the respondents against the tenants in the year 1968 and matter has gone upto the Supreme Court where the order of ejectment had been maintained.
4. The execution proceedings started in which appellants took the plea that ejectment order has been passed in respect of premises Nos. G/3 and G/5 and they are prepared to vacate these premises but there is a confusion on the plot. In all, there are 7 tenements. Such an application under section 47 read with Order VII, rule 3 was moved before the Rent Controller, the same has been dismissed by an order dated 26‑11‑1986. Appellants being aggrieved filed these first rent appeals.
5. I have heard Mr.Maroof Ali Khan for the appellants. It is contended by the learned counsel that appellants are prepared to hand over the vacant possession of the premises as per judgment but on the same plot there are some other houses and they are all being vacated, therefore, the execution proceedings are not proper. He has referred to sections 17 and 18 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and submitted that landlord is bound to furnish to the Rent Controller such particulars in respect of such building or rented land as may be prescribed. It is contended that in other adjacent houses the sons and other relatives of the appellant are living and they will be affected. He has referred to the case reported in P L D 1983 S C 155 .
6. Mr. K.B. Bhutto appearing for the respondents, on pre‑admission notice, contended that all these points were taken into consideration at the various stages and there are admission on the part of the appellant that this is the only plot in respect of which the rent cases were filed and their numbers are G/3 and G/5. It is argued that between the same parties some other petitions were filed, therefore, there is absolutely no confusion.
7. Mr. Maroof Ali Khan's contention that other tenants who are related inter se to the appellant will be affected cannot be sustained on the simple ground that they have neither applied to the Rent Controller to become a party in the execution proceedings nor they have filed such an affidavit before this Court. This Court could have also considered this if there would have been any confusion, under section 13 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. However, when the appellants are prepared to hand over the possession and they cannot plead the cause of some other persons. The Rent Controller has discussed all these points in the impugned order and has come to the conclusion that there is no question of any misunderstanding as both the tenements Nos. G/3 and G/5 are on the property No. LY.7/18, Plot No. 6‑B, Gao Gali Lyari Quarters, Karachi. However, it was open to the appellant to have contested all these points earlier when they had a chance at the various stages before the Supreme Court.
8. 1 do not find any force in these appeals the same are dismissed in limine. Consequently the stay order granted on 271986 stands vacated.
Appeals dismissed
H. B.T/5119/K
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer