Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLD 676 = 1990 MLD 1682
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
First Rent Appeal No. 331 and 332 of 1987, decided on 4th March, 1990.
Presented By: Before Wajihuddin Ahmed, J
K. M. Nadeem for Appellant. Aijaz Khatak for
Respondents.

MUHAMMAD MEHTAB--Appellant

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and another--Respondents

Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 15

  Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.15---Practice and procedure   Witnesses of 4 party should not be allowed to be present when- evidence of that party by which such witnesses were to be tendered, was going on---Short of contumacious disregard of Court's order, if any witness had unwillingly remained in Court, could, at best, draw inferences of his own but could not shut out relevant evidence  Unless essential, in the interest of justice and supportable by rule of law, precedent or practice of any unshakable nature, no evidence is to be shut out, merely on technical grounds.--[Witness]. Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII or 1979)--- ----S.15---Ejectment of tenant---Ground of sub-tenancy---Proof---On the ground of sub-tenancy, tenant's plea was that the alleged sub-tenant was in fact a tenant of a separate tenement  Such ground was also adopted by the alleged sub-tenant though he admitted that the original agreement of tenancy was not with him but with the landlord---Sub-tenant having submitted a photostat copy of alleged Iqrarnama, same did not bear any official attestation, nor the signatures of landlord---Rent Controller had found the alleged Iqrarnama to be fraudulent and declined to act on the same  High Court in the totality of evidence could not find out to differ with finding of Rent Controller on the question of sub-tenancy-- Tenant and sub-tenant admitted to be related to each other, had filed a common written statement, engaged a common counsel produced common witnesses, took the same pleas in written statement--Money orders sent by tenant and sub tenant were in identical handwriting  Miscellaneous cases filed for deposit of rent were also filed simultaneously by the tenant and sub-tenant---Tenancy in favour of alleged sub-tenant was thus not proved  Finding of Rent Controller that tenant had sublet the premises was thus unexceptionable. Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.15---Default in payment of rent---Proof  Total rent of premises being Rs.300 per month and independent tenancy with regard to premises in favour of alleged sub-tenant having not been…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register