| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 1973 2000 SLD 1973 2000 CLC 1196 |
Sindh High Court
First Rent Appeal No.85 of 1991, decision dated: 12-02-1999
DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, J
Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh for Applicant Muhammad Ali Syed for
Respondent
First Rent Appeal No.85 of 1991, decision dated: 12-02-1999
DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, J
Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh for Applicant Muhammad Ali Syed for
Respondent
PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED through Attorney--Applicant
VS
ABDUL KHALIQUE GANDAKWALA through Attorney
Law:
Section:
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-------Ss. 15(2) & 21---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)---Ejectment of tenant---Setting aside of ejectment order on, the basis of fraud---Dispute between the parties went up to Supreme Court where the tenant was given one year period to vacate the premises---Contention by the occupant was that he was a licensee and had a right to remain in possession of the disputed plot till 13-2-1999---Supreme Court had passed an order of ejectment and the licence was also revoked-- -Applicant did not make any protest and when the period was about to expire, application had been moved---Validity---Such application was nothing but an abuse of process of the Court---Application was dismissed in limine. Ismail Brothers v. Keval Ram PLD 1981 SC 545; Ch. Jalal Din v. Mst. Asghari Begum and others 1984 SCMR 586 and Mst. Fehmida Begum v. Muhammad Khalid and another 1992 SCMR 1908 ref. ORDER This order will dispose of application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. submitted by the applicant/intervenor. It is the case of the applicant that he invested huge amount to run his business of petrol pump on the plot in dispute and he was assured that he would not be ejected from the premises till expiry of lease period. However, allegedly after collusive ejectment proceedings he was informed all of a sudden through letter, dated October 9, 1998 that he was required to remove the equipments and structure on/or before 13-2-1999 from the premises in dispute in order to comply with the order, 29-3-1994 of the Honourable Supreme Court. The applicant through his learned counsel gave reply which is available on record. In this reply it was specifically stated that the licence should not be withdrawn before 13-2-1999. It is also the case of the applicant that thereafter he made inquiries about the ejectment proceedings and it transpired that the Excise and Taxation Department had not sent any demand challan or bill to the appellant demanding betterment. Further, the appellant allegedly did not contest the ejectment proceedings seriously, therefore the respondent managed to obtain ejectment order fraudulently I heard learned counsel for theβ¦
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