| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1837 2004 SLD 1837 2004 CLC 830 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.969 of 2002, decision dated: 7-02-2003.
S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Constitutional Petition No.969 of 2002, decision dated: 7-02-2003.
S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD IRFAN
VS
Mst. FATIMA SAEED and others
Law:
Section:
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-------Ss. 15, 19 & 22---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Constitutional petition---Default in payment of rent by tenant and bona fide personal need of landlady ---Ejectment proceedings---Closing side of tenant---Application for re-opening the same---Son and attorney of landlady filed his affidavit-in-evidence and his evidence remained unrebutted as according to Rent Controller tenant had failed to cross examine attorney of landlady---Tenant had alleged that no proper opportunity was provided to him either to cross-examine attorney of landlady or to adduce his own evidence in rebuttal ---Ejectment of tenant was ordered on both grounds of default in payment of rent and personal bona fide need of landlady, concurrently by Rent Controller and the Appellate Court---Application for re-opening side of tenant and grant of permission to cross-examine attorney of landlady, was rejected by Rent Controller on the ground that same was filed beyond time, though no such time was provided under any provisions of Limitation Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force---Order for closing side of tenant and further refusing to recall attorney of landlady and to allow tenant to cross-examine the said witness, were not justified as reasonable opportunity was not provided to tenant by Rent Controller to put up his case by cross-examining the attorney of landlady and thereafter filing his evidence in rebuttal---Rent Controller had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him on flimsy ground which had no legs to stand as no time limit was provided for filing application for re-opening the side of tenant---Right of parties should not be allowed to be jeopardized in such manner---Courts were not expected to thwart the rights of litigants as main object of procedure in any system of administration of justice was to help and not to thwart the grant of rights to the people---High Court allowing Constitutional petition, set aside concurrent orders of Rent Controller and Appellate Court and remanded case to decide afresh after providing opportunity to tenant to cross-examine landlady and her witness. Imtiaz Ahmad v.…
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