Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 1916 2000 SLD 1916 2000 CLC 965
Sindh High Court
Appeal No.211 of 1998, decision dated: 23rd December, 1998
HAMID ALI MIRZA, J
M.S. Qureshi for Appellant. Mian Mushtaq Ahmad for
Respondent

SHAHID MIAN and anotheR

VS

STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN» First Rent

Law:

Section:

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)------Ss. 10 & 15(2)(ii)---Default in payment of rent---Tenant who had failed to pay rent for four months, could not prove by reliable and satisfactory evidence that rent was being collected by landlord in lump sum which could be said to have overruled legal provisions of Ss.10 & 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Rent Controller, in circumstances, rightly ordered ejectment of tenant on ground of default in payment of rent. JUDGMENT This is an appeal under section 21 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (hereinafter called the Rent Ordinance) directed against an order dated 19-3-1998 passed by VIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi-South, in Rent Case No.1217 of 1991 (State Life Insurance Corporation v. Shahid Mian and another) whereby an eviction application under section 15 filed by the respondents/applicants was allowed and the appellants/tenants were, directed to vacate the premises within a period of two months from the date of impugned order. The brief facts of the case are that. the respondents/applicants filed eviction application under section 15 of Rent Ordinance in respect of Shop No.13, State Life Building No.8, situated at Dundas Street, Off Zaibunnisa Street, Saddar Karachi, against the appellants/tenants on the grounds that appellant No. l being tenant has committed default in payment of rent from January 1991 to April 1991 and further that the Appellant No.1 has passed on possession of the said premises to Appellant No.2 without consent or permission in writing of respondent/applicants. The appellants filed written­ statement stating therein that the Appellant No. l was not the tenant in respect of shop in question and it was in the knowledge of respondents that name of Appellant No. l was entered in place of Appellant No.2 in respect of shop in question to fulfill legal requirements as a result of compromise arrived at between the parties in the execution proceedings of Rent Case No.2494 of 1985 and as such the status of appellant No. 1 was nothing but like a person behind the curtain as a pro forma person who never was in physical possession and occupation of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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