Case Details

Citation(s)
1999 SLD 813 = 1999 CLC 1090
Sindh High Court
First, Rent Appeal No.  108  of  1992, decided                 on     10th September, 1998.
Presented By: Before    Ikram Ahmed Ansari, J
NadimAzhar Siddiqui   for Appellant. Atta-ur-Rehman for
Respondent No. l Nemo    for
Respondent No.2.

Messrs  SASI (PVT.) LIMITED---Appellant

VERSUS

Messrs          STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF          PAKISTAN and another---Respondents

Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 15

  Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15---Subletting---Onus to prove such plea is on landlord and not on    the tenant---Where landlord had alleged subletting   and accepted rent from tenants   without protest for quite a   long time, allegation of subletting was not proved. Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance   (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.  15---Plea  of subletting---Proof---Person holding    valid general power  of attorney on behalf of the landlord was not examined as a witness by the Rent Controller--- -Landlord had failed to show that out of two   tenements which    had   been sublet by the tenant and what rent was being realised by the tenant              for    alleged subletting---Rent Controller  had ordered ejectment of the    tenant--Validity---Held, there was no lawful evidence in support of the pleas raised by      the     landlord, except pleadings and the same could not take place of evidence,  and,     as such, no subletting was proved by the landlord---Rent Controller had erred in    ordering ejectment of tenant on    said        plea ---Ejectment  order passed by the Rent   Controller was set aside                              in circumstances. Messrs     Adil Brothers (Private) Limited v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation 1995 CLC 1652 and Dost Muhammad v. Mst. Ramzan Bibi and 9 others  1990  MLD 1667 rel. NadimAzhar Siddiqui   for Appellant. Atta-ur-Rehman for Respondent No. l Nemo    for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1998. JUDGMENT Through this appeal the   appellant    has challenged   the order, …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register