| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 3424 2019 SLD 3424 2019 YLR 474 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Constitutional Petitions Nos. S-902 and S-903 of 2017,decision dated: 20-07-2018, hearing dates: 21st May and 1stJune, 2018
NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Abdul Naeem and Faisal Naeem for Petitioners (in C. P. No. S-902 of 2017). Manoj Kumar Tejwani for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in C.P. No. S-902 of 2017). Abdul Naeem and Faisal Naeem for Petitioners (in C. P. No. S-903 of 2017). Syed Bahadur Ali Shah for R
Constitutional Petitions Nos. S-902 and S-903 of 2017,decision dated: 20-07-2018, hearing dates: 21st May and 1stJune, 2018
NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Abdul Naeem and Faisal Naeem for Petitioners (in C. P. No. S-902 of 2017). Manoj Kumar Tejwani for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in C.P. No. S-902 of 2017). Abdul Naeem and Faisal Naeem for Petitioners (in C. P. No. S-903 of 2017). Syed Bahadur Ali Shah for R
PETITIONER(S): MST. ZAHIDA PERVEEN AND ANOTHERVSRESPONDENT(S): IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
Section: 15,16(1)
(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----Ss. 15 & 16 (1)---Ejectment of tenant---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant on the basis of agreement to sell---Application for deposit of arrears of rent in the Court---"Interlocutory order"---Effect---Landlords moved an application seeking direction for deposit of arrears of rent but same was dismissed---Validity---Sale of demised premises had not been completed in favour of tenants---Demised premises had not been transferred in favour of tenants through a registered instrument---Demised premises was still in the name of landlords---Suit for specific performance with regard to demised premises was subjudice before the Trial Court---Tenants were not entitled to claim ownership of demised premises till a decree was passed in their favour and same had attained finality---Mere pendency of suit for specific performance would not change the position---Relationship of landlord and tenant for the purpose of jurisdiction of Rent Controller stood established---Rent Controller was bound to pass a tentative rent order on the application filed by the landlords---Rent Controller had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law---Any order passed by a Court or tribunal in excess of its jurisdiction or by not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it by law could be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Mere fact that impugned order was interlocutory would not prevent the High Court from exercising constitutional jurisdiction---Superior Courts had inherent and constitutional powers to remedy and correct the wrongs committed by subordinate Courts---Impugned order was set aside in circumstances---Tenants were directed to deposit arrears of rent within thirty days and future monthly rent regularly till final disposal of the ejectment petition---Amount deposited by the tenants was directed to be invested in some profit bearing Government scheme and be paid/released along with profit to the successful party---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Nisar v. Izhar Ahmed Shaikh and others PLD 2014 SC 347; Waheedullah v. Mst. Rehana Nasim and others…
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