| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1965 SLG 4637 = 1965 SLD 4637 = 1965 PLD 195 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1960, decided ,on 23rd November 1964.
Presented By: A. S. Faruqui and H. T. Raymond, JJ
E. V. Castellino for Appellant. Mohanlal for Legal Representatives of
Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 absent.
Civil Appeal No. 155 of 1960, decided ,on 23rd November 1964.
Presented By: A. S. Faruqui and H. T. Raymond, JJ
E. V. Castellino for Appellant. Mohanlal for Legal Representatives of
Respondent No. 1.
Respondent No. 2 absent.
ZAHIR AHMED-Appellant
VERSUS
SETH SUGNICHAND AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Registration Act (XVI of 1908)
Section: 49,17
Registration Act (XVI of 1908)-----Ss. 49 & 17-Elimination of sub-cl. (c) from S. 49 by amendment-Effect - Document required by law to be registered but not registered-Not inadmissible in evidence---Rent deed, not compulsorily required to be registered, executed by tenant in favour of landlord-Such deed can, be relied upon to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between parties - Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S., 107. Anwar Sultana v Pakistan Co-operative Housing Society P L D 1964 Kar. 116 and Mohanlal v. Ganda Singh I L R 1943 Lah. 695 ref. Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)-----S. 107 and Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 49-Oral agreement of lease accompanied by possession-Document, executed subsequently, in nature of mere memo. reciting terms already agreed upon Document held, did not "create" lease-Could be relied upon to establish tenancy and its terms. Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 116-Expression "and the lessor otherwise assents"-Demand for rent or suit for rent-Circumstances from which assent of lessor can be inferred -Originally on monthly basis for 4 months only pending completion of sale of premises by landlord in favour of tenant-Sale proving abortiveTenant continuing in possession for number of years thereafter without objection from landlord-Assent of landlord inferred-Tenant liable to pay rent as agreed upon originally. Dougal v. McCarthy (1893) 1 Q B 736 ; Balaji v. Ramchandra (1903) 27 Bom. 262 and Muhammad Saeed v. Khushi Muhammad P L D 1954 Lah. 796 ref. Dates of hearing : 25th and 30th September and 1st October 1964, JUDGMENT FARUQUI, J.-----This appeal by the defendant No. 2 Zahir Ahmad is directed against the decree passed by Mr. Shaft Muhammad Akhund, First Class Sub-Judge, Sukkur, in Suit No. 28/1951. The first respondent in this appeal is Seth Sugni Chand who was the plaintiff in the suit. The second respondent Azizuddin, a brother of the appellant Zahir Ahmad, was the defendant No. 1 in the suit and has been impleaded in this appeal as a pro forma respondent. The suit from which this appeal arises was for the…