| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 1079 1994 SLD 1079 1994 CLC 45 |
Sindh High Court
F.RA. No. 56 of 1985, decided on 28th July, 1993.
ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J
Abdul Hameed Siddiqi for Appellant. Kamal-ud-Din for
Respondents
F.RA. No. 56 of 1985, decided on 28th July, 1993.
ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J
Abdul Hameed Siddiqi for Appellant. Kamal-ud-Din for
Respondents
Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD
VS
Haji ABDUL RAZAQ and another
Law:
Section:
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)- ----S. 15(2)(vi)---Reconstruction of premises---Landlord seeking ejectment of tenant from premises in dispute on ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction, had produced copy of permission duly granted by Authority concerned and approved site plan which showed that landlord intended to construct a double-storied building in place of existing structure---Rent Controller, held rightly allowed application of landlords on ground of demolition and reconstruction. JUDGMENT This First Rent Appeal has been filed challenging the orders passed by the Rent Controller in Rent Case No. 593 of 1980 whereby he had ordered the ejectment of the present appellant on the ground of requirement 'of the landlords for demolition and reconstruction of the premises. Briefly the facts are that the applicants in the said Rent Case being owners of shop constructed on premises No.G-2407-I Phuleli Bazar, Hyderabad had filed the said rent case on the ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction. The present appellant contested the matter and filed his written statement wherein it was pleaded that the application has been made with mala fide intentions as the present respondents did not require the premises for the purpose as claimed by them; and that the respondent No.l was not the owner of the premises. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Rent Controller settled the two points for determination, firstly, if there was a relationship of landlord and tenant and secondly, if the applicants require the premises for demolition and reconstruction. Both the applicants filed their own affidavits-in-evidence while the opponent/present appellant also filed his affidavit-in-evidence. Applicant Abdul Razzak was cross-examined while applicant Mst. Salina could not be cross-examined and, therefore, her affidavit-in-evidence has. to be discarded from consideration. However, on the admissions of the present appellant, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did exist. This point is not challenged before me during the course of arguments by the learned…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492