| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 3047 2019 SLD 3047 2019 YLR 2500 |
Sindh High Court
C. P. No. S-922 of 2012, decision Dated: 23-04-2018. Dates of hearing: 8th, 24th November, 4th December, 2017, 30th January, 26th February, 26th March and 23rd April, 2018.
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shaikh Muhammad Wasim
Respondent(s) by: Shahan Karimi
C. P. No. S-922 of 2012, decision Dated: 23-04-2018. Dates of hearing: 8th, 24th November, 4th December, 2017, 30th January, 26th February, 26th March and 23rd April, 2018.
MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shaikh Muhammad Wasim
Respondent(s) by: Shahan Karimi
CAPRI AUTOS, NMOTORCYCLE DEALERS
VS
DR. MASUMA HASAN AND OTHERS
Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
Section: 15,18
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----Ss. 15 & 18---Eviction petition---Default in payment of rent---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant---Deposit of rent in court---Notice of change in ownership, service of---Scope---Landlord while claiming default in payment of rent asserted that the tenant was inducted in the premises by previous tenant and that he was a trespasser---Tenant asserted that he came to know about the change of ownership of premises through public notice; that he offered the rent personally which the landlord's attorney refused to receive; that the rent was then tendered through money order which too was refused and that the rent was being deposited in court---Validity---Eviction petition was not maintainable against a trespasser or an illegal occupant---Landlady admitted that no notice regarding change in ownership was ever served upon the tenant however, claimed that two notices requiring vacation of premises were sent---Landlady had been quiet until filing of eviction application and had never attempted to inform the tenant regarding change of ownership---Notices were not proved to be served upon the tenant---Tenant, soon after acquiring knowledge of publication of notice, had offered the rent and on its refusal and denial, deposited the same in miscel-laneous rent case, which deposit was within a reasonable period of acquiring knowledge of the change of ownership---Default, as claimed by landlady, was an engineered one---Eviction application was dismissed, in circumstances. Hirjibhai Behrana Dar-e-Mehar v. Messrs Bombay Steel Works 2001 SCMR 1888 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.--- This petition is filed against the concurrent findings of two Courts below. 2. In brief the facts are that an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed as Rent Case No.1154/2004 against one Capri Autos without impleading its proprietor as a party or through its proprietor. The rent case was contested on behalf of Capri Autos by one Abdul Rahim son of Hissamuddin who not only denied the relationship but submitted that the rent was paid to the rent collector Master…
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