| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 628 2012 SLD 628 2012 CLC 1532 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.S-1355 of 2011, decision dated: 11-01-2012
SALMAN HAMID, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Constitutional Petition No.S-1355 of 2011, decision dated: 11-01-2012
SALMAN HAMID, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MASTER ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. Through G.M. Administrator and Finance
VS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI SOUTH and 2 others
Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)
Section: 10
Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)
Section: 10
Law: Contract Act, 1872
Section: 188
(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-------Ss. 10 & 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Tenant, during cross-examination, had admitted that he had, for a certain period of time, discontinued the payment of rent---Contention of the tenant that there was no wilful default in payment did not hold much field, since, if the landlord had refused to receive payment of rent, such rent could have been deposited with the Rent Controller under S.10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 after being tendered through money order and refusal of the same---No money order was ever sent to the landlord by the petitioner, and therefore, there was wilful and deliberate default on the part of the tenant---If even once the rent was not accepted by the landlord, the tenant was duty bound to deposit the rent in court under S.10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which the tenant did not do---Constitutional petition was dismissed. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15---Contract Act (IX of 1872) S.188---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Constitutional petition--- Agent's authority--- Scope---Contention of the tenant (petitioner) was that the ejectment petition was filed by an unauthorized person---Validity---Section 188 of the Contract Act, 1872 stipulated that the agent had the authority to do every lawful thing which was necessary in order to do such act, and the person through whom the case had been filed, was authorized to do so and pursue the case---Ejectment case was filed with the authorization of the principal---No objection had been raised by the principal/landlord company; which showed that they had ratified the act of filing the ejectment case---While the leading of evidence and cross-examination tenant had not raised any point with regard to the authority of the said person---Constitutional petition was dismissed. M. Umer Lakhani for Petitioner. Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 11th January, 2012. ORDER SALMAN HAMID, J.--- It is the case of the petitioner that in the first instance Rent Case No.457 of 2004 (Rent Case) against the petitioner for…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492