| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 426 1956 SLD 426 = 1956 PLD 509 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Suit No. 867 of 1952, decided on 23rd July, 1956.
(Original Civil Jurisdiction) Before Lari, J
S. A. Nusart, for Plaintiff. Ali Raz, for Defendant.
Suit No. 867 of 1952, decided on 23rd July, 1956.
(Original Civil Jurisdiction) Before Lari, J
S. A. Nusart, for Plaintiff. Ali Raz, for Defendant.
Sheikh ABDUL HAMID-Plaintiff
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD MASHOOQ ALI KHAN-----Defendant
Law: Sind Rent Restriction Act (X of 1947)
Section: 20 (1) (2) (5)
P L D 1956 (W. P.) Karachi 509 Sind Rent Restriction Act (X of 1947), S. 20 (1) (2) (5) Review by Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, of order under S, 20 (1)-Ultra vires. Held, that subsection (5) of section 20, Sind Rent Res triction Act (X of 1947) allows delegation of powers exercis able by the Central Government under subsection (:) of section 20 only and not of those under subsection (2) of section 20 (Review). Powers of Review, therefore, exercised by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, seemingly under subsection (2) of section 20 were ultra vires even if such powers were said to have been delegated by the Central Government to the Chief judge. JUDGMENT LARI, J.--It appears that Sheikh Abdul Hamid applied to the Rent Controller for a certificate under section 9 of the Sind Rent Restriction Act X of 1947 to enable him to eject the defendant who is his tenant from the premises in question. The certificate prayed for was granted on 8th November 1.950 by the Additional Rent Controller. The defendant thereupon filed an application for revision under section 20 of the Sind Rent Restriction Act X of 1947. The Chief Judge, Small Causes Court rejected the revision on 8th October 1951. The defendant subsequently applied for a review of the order under section 20 (2) of the same Act. This review was allowed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court by his order dated 26th June 1952. The plaintiff thereupon filed the suit for a declaration that the order passed by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court on 26th June 1952 was without jurisdiction and as such null and void. The relevant facts were admitted in the written statement but it was denied that the order challenged was null and void. The following issues were framed Whether the defendant is not a tenant of the plaintiff. Whether the order of the Chief Judge Small Causes Court is illegal, ultra vices and without jurisdiction. Whether the plaintiff is barred under section 22 of the Rent Act to challenge the order of the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled."…