| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2049 2026 SLD 2049 = 2026 CLC 731 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Constitution Petitions Nos. S-37, S-38, S-39, S-44, S-45 and S-46 of 2024, decided on 31st May, 2024.
Presented By: Before Arbab Ali Hakro, J
Sarfraz A. Akhund, Qadeer Ahmed and Mujeeb Rehman Malano for Petitioner (in C.P. No. S-46 of 2024). Muhammad Zubair Malik and Co. for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in all petitions). Ghulam Abbas Kuber, A.A.G. for
Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
Constitution Petitions Nos. S-37, S-38, S-39, S-44, S-45 and S-46 of 2024, decided on 31st May, 2024.
Presented By: Before Arbab Ali Hakro, J
Sarfraz A. Akhund, Qadeer Ahmed and Mujeeb Rehman Malano for Petitioner (in C.P. No. S-46 of 2024). Muhammad Zubair Malik and Co. for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in all petitions). Ghulam Abbas Kuber, A.A.G. for
Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
HAROON RASHEED ---Petitioner
VERSUS
SHAHNAWAZ MEMON and 4 others ---Respondents
Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979
Section: XVII,15
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 115
(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition--Ejectment proceedings---Scope---High Court does not typically operate as an Appellate Court in matters pertaining to rent---Jurisdiction of High Court is primarily confined to addressing those decisions which, prima facie, appear to have engendered significant legal errors, culminating in a miscarriage of justice--Appellate Court retains the ultimate authority in the hierarchy of rent-related matters, and when both rent authorities have concurrent findings, the scope for intervention is considerably circumscribed. Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa and 5 others 2001 SCMR 338 rel. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.15---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.115---Ejectment of tenant--Estoppel upon tenant, principle of---Applicability---Default in payment of rent--Landlord and tenant, relationship of---Proof---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Petitioners / tenants were aggrieved of eviction orders passed by Rent Controller, which was maintained by Lower Appellate Court--Held: To circumvent repercussions of default, a tenant cannot refute landlord s ownership---Petitioners/tenants acknowledged their induction as tenants in demised shops, thus, under Art.115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, they were estopped from denying title of respondent / landlord---Tenant is only permitted to dispute title/relationship of landlord of the individual who inducted him as tenant by first relinquishing possession of the premises to the landlord--Petitioners/tenants were obligated to return possession of the premises to respondent / landlord---Petitioners/tenants during cross-examination, conceded in their respective testimonies that they had not paid monthly rent to respondent / landlord post year 2004, nor had they deposited rent in Court since year 2007--Conclusions reached by both the lower Courts were predicated on petitioners /tenants admission of willful default in payment of rent---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent…