Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115-Mixed question of law and fact-Not allowed to be raised for first time in revision.   Karachi Rent Restriction Act (VIII of 1953), S. 10 (2) (b) Word `landlord'-More landlords than one -Application for eject ment need not be made by all-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 13.   Karachi Rent Restriction Act (VIII of 1953)-Proceedings before Rent Controller under Act-Not to be judged strictly from point of view of mere technicalities observed in law Courts. JUDGMENT   This is a revision application to challenge the validity of the judgment and decree for ejectment dated the 30th of May, 1962 granted by Mr. Mehdi Ali Siddiqui, Additional District Judge, Karachi.   In support of this application Mr. DeSa has advanced two arguments: firstly, that thecertificate for ejectment obtained from the Rent Controller on the basis of which the suit for ejectment was instituted was invalid because there were two landlords but only one of them had applied for and obtained it; secondly, that the certificate was invalid because the application for obtaining it, was made in 1952 on allegations of violation of the provisions of the law which was in force at that time but the certificate was granted on the 20th of July 1953 under the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953 which was not retrospective. Counsel argued that the creation of sub-tenancy which was alleged in the application must necessarily have taken place before the enforce ment of 1953 Act; therefore, it could not be the ground for granting a certificate for ejectment under the subsequent Act.   The facts briefly stated are that the present applicants are sought to be ejected fromthe residential flats. The landlords are Mst. Wazirabai and her son Fida Hussain. The tenants are Fazal Hussain and Khuda Bux ; who are alleged to have sublet the premises to Hidayatullah and Malik. The main ground on which the certificate for ejectment was asked for was that the tenants had sublet the premises and had thus disentitled them selves to continue as tenants.   Mr. DeSa has argued that the tenants were in occupa tion of the premises from 1942 and that…