Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 297 2020 SLD 297 2020 YLR 61
Sindh High Court
First Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2018, decision Dated: 22-03-2018.Hearing Dated: 27-02- 2018.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Khawaja Shamsul Islam
Respondent(s) by: Amel Khan Kasi No.1.

SAEED MAZHAR ALIVSMRS. AROOSA MUBASHIR THROUGH ATTORNEY AND ANOTHER

Law: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963

Section: 6,6(1)(2),17,24,30

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 175(3)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXI,R.66

Law: General Clauses Act, 1897

Section: 6(e)

(a) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)--- ----Ss. 6, 17, 24 & 30---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6(e)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 175(3)---Eviction of tenant---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Tenant had stopped paying the monthly rent to the landlord claiming that he had entered into agreement to sell regarding demised property with the landlord---Appellant/ tenant challenged the competency of the Additional Cantonment Executive Officer as Rent Controller before High Court claiming that no notification was issued for his appointment as Rent Controller---Validity--- Question of inherent jurisdiction, normally a pure question of law, could be raised at any stage and non-raising thereof before the lowest forum (waiver) would not be sufficient for ousting the jurisdiction of appellate forum from examining the same---Challenge to inherent jurisdiction would never earn status of 'new plea' which normally was not permissible to be taken at later stages---Section 6 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 stipulated that appointment of Rent Controller required only issuance of notification which, however, had not been made subject to 'consultation of Chief Justice' rather the absolute competence had been vested with the Federal Government to appoint a person as Rent Controller or Additional Rent Controller by issuing notification in official gazette---Court could not add or delete anything in or out of a provision---Scope of interpretation was to make a bona fide attempt to unfold ambiguous words or phrases without disturbing the object and intention of the Legislature rather legally every attempt even while interpreting such ambiguous thing, the intention and object of the legislation had to be protected---Section 6 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 itself had given absolute and exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Government to 'appoint' a person as Rent Controller or Additional Rent Controller which had not been limited to any condition including that such person could not be a public servant rather such appointed person had been clothed as public servant under S.30 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963---Issuance of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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