Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2000 SCMR 1239

REHANA JAMAL and others vs MUHAMMAD ASIM

Citation2000 SCMR 1239
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 84-K of 1999 F.R.A. No,126/95
Date1999-07-13
Judge(s)Mamoon Kazi, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Kamal Mansur Alam
ResultLeave granted

ORDER

' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner, claiming to have become absolute owner of property situated on Plot No,SE-3, Block G, North Nazimabad, Karachi served a notice under section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, dated 19-1-1992 on the respondent, who was her tenant in Shops Nos.104 and 105, claiming rent from January, 1992. The respondent, however, informed the petitioner through his Advocate's letter that he had started depositing rent in M.R.C. Nos.216 of 1992 and 217 of 1992. Subsequently, ejectment application was filed by the petitioner in May 1992 seeking the respondent's ejectment from the demised premises on account of non-payment of rent as well as personal need of the petitioner. The relief was, however, declined by the Rent Controller and the rent appeal filed by the petitioner before the High Court also failed.

2. Contention of Mr. Haider Ali Pirzada learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, is that, the respondent was bound under the law to tender rent due from him within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice under section 18 which admittedly was not done by the respondent and the rent had also been deposited from July, 1992 in the said miscellaneous rent cases and that also in the name of one Gulzar and not in the name of the petitioner and consequently, the learned Judge in the High Court was clearly in error while holding that the respondent was not liable to be ejected on the ground of default. The learned Judge in the High Court, according to the learned counsel, was also in error while holding that the respondent was not liable to be evicted on the ground of personal bona fide need in presence of overwhelming evidence produced on the point by the petitioner, indicating that the premises in question were required by the petitioner's husband to establish his independent business of readymade garments. However, such evidence was disbelieved on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed material facts in regard to other properties owned by her.

3. Leave to appeal is granted to, inter alia, consider the said contentions.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch