Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLD 2001 Karachi 159

GHULAM NABI vs GHULAM SARWAR

CitationPLD 2001 Karachi 159
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.First Rent Appeal No,S-6, Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.35 and 36 of
Date2000-05-15
Judge(s)Muhammad Ashraf Leghari
ResultAppeal dismissed

ORDER

1. Respondent Ghulam Sarwar filed rent application under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the appellant for handing over vacant possession of the residential house situated in Dokri Town. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent is owner of the said house which he rented out to the appellant with effect from 17-5-1995 at the rate of rent of Rs,1,000 per month. It is stated that appellant failed to deposit rent from April to June, 1999 and committed wilful default.

2. The respondent further prayed that the premises in question is required to him for his personal bona fide use. The appellant was served and he pleaded his case in written reply, stating, that the ejectment application was not maintainable and that the respondent was not owner of the house.

3. He claimed to be owner of the disputed house and the same was entered in his name in Record of Rights. He pleaded that on 29-11-1995 Town Officer, Town Committee Dokri had issued a letter in favour of appellant that he is owner of the house by way of inheritance. The appellant stated in the written reply that electricity and gas meters have been installed in his name and he is paying the bills, as such. He stated that applicant/respondent was son-in-law of his brother Ghulam Hyder Memon and is residing in another house belonging to appellant. Out , of pleadings, following issues were framed by the Rent Controller. POINT NO.1: Where there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. POINT NO.2: Whether the opponent is defaulter?

4. POINT NO.3: Whether the disputed house is in personal bona fide use of applicant? POINT NO.4: What should the order be? The parties led their evidence and learned Rent Controller ultimately came to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant was existing in between the parties. The appellant was defaulter in payment of rent and that the house in question was required to respondent for his personal bona fide use and consequently allowed the ejectment application. It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Anwar Durrani for the appellant that the document showing entry in Town Committee record in favour of respondent is false and fabricated and that the rent agreement in between the appellant and respondent is also forged and false. It is stated that the house in question is entered in Town Committee record in his name but unfortunately the said documents have not been produced in the Court of Rent Controller. He stated that the respondent is not landlord and there is no tenancy relationship in between the parties.

5. I have seen the lower Court record and find that the respondent has produced tenancy agreement signed by the parties which shows that the appellant had taken the premises on rent from the respondent at the rate of rent of Rs,1,000. The attesting witnesses namely Ashiq Ali and Habibullah have been examined. Both of them have supported the execution of said rent agreement. Likewise the certificate dated 27-12-1994 has been issued by Town Officer, Town Committee Dokri which shows that the house in question belongs to respondent and is entered in the record in the name of respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any ownership document in favour of appellant but he states that if this rent application is remanded back to Rent Controller he can prove his ownership. I am sorry, I cannot accede that request as the competent Court has delivered its finding on the basis of record that the appellant is the tenant of respondent and that admittedly he is not paying rent to him. The respondent needs the premises in dispute for his personal use and the said piece of evidence is not rebutted by appellant. The rent appeal is meritless and is dismissed in limine alongwith the listed applications with no order as to costs. However, if the appellant claims to be the owner of the property he can avail his remedy before the proper forum if available to him under the law. The premises are to be vacated by the appellant within sixty days from the date of this order.

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