Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 15,16(1)

Case Summary: The petitioners filed petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan challenging the order dated 09.01.2026 by the VIII-Rent Controller Karachi Central. The Rent Controller had rejected the petitioners’ applications to dismiss a rent case filed by the respondent, who claimed to be the lawful owner of several shops and alleged that the petitioners were tenants in default of rent. The petitioners contended that they had purchased the premises through a Sale Agreement on 30.10.2023 and were lawful owners, denying any landlord-tenant relationship. They argued that ownership disputes ousted the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller held that: The dispute regarding tenancy and ownership could only be resolved after recording evidence from both parties. Once a rent application is admitted, it cannot be dismissed at an interlocutory stage. Jurisdiction is not ousted merely because ownership is disputed; it is only ousted when landlord-tenant relationship is demonstrably absent on admitted facts. The court dismissed the petitions, observing that the Rent Controller had rightly exercised jurisdiction and should proceed with the rent proceedings on merits. Sections Used: Sections 15 & 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 Two 2-Word Descriptions for the Case: Ownership Dispute Rent Jurisdiction O R D E R Petitioners above named have filed the captioned petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, with the following prayer: To suspend the operation of the order dated 09.1.2026 and dismiss the rent application of the respondent No.l .   To direct the respondent No.2 not proceed with the matter till final decision of this petition. The petitioners, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned VIII-Rent Controller Karachi Central whereby the petitioners' applications for dismissal of the rent case were rejected, and the petitioners were directed to file an affidavit-in-evidence, have impugned the said order as being illegal, unlawful, and contrary to facts and law. It appears from the record that, the respondent…