1216/2018 Const. P. Mst. Farzana Javed (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Nighat Sultana & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 18-JUL-18
(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.15---Eviction petition---Default in payment of rent---Personal bona fide need of landlady---Scope---Trial Court dismissed the petition holding that landlady had failed to prove her personal need of the rented premises---Trial Court did not decide the issue of default on the ground that it was not agitated by her counsel at the time of final arguments---Appellate Court allowed the appeal and directed the tenant to vacate the rented premises---Validity---Held; it could not be believed that the counsel who filed case for default then filed an application for tentative rent order and after obtaining certified copies of ledger of Nazir filed an application for striking off defense, had failed to agitate ground of default in final arguments---Trial Court was entrusted with the duty of doing justice between the parties, to decide each issue between them in accordance with law on merit on the basis of record and evidence irrespective of arguments by the counsel---In presence of record/evidence, unless the question of default was dropped in writing, Trial Court was not supposed to leave a crucial issue between the parties undecided merely for want of arguments---Findings of Trial Court on the issue of personal bona fide need of landlady were equally perverse and contrary to the record and evidence---Tenant neither in her written statement nor in her affidavit-in-evidence had alleged that two flats of the landlady were lying vacant in the same building, but the Trial Court had relied on such purported statement of tenant---High Court, while maintaining the order of Appellate Court, dismissed the constitutional petition with costs. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.15---Eviction petition---Personal bona fide need of landlady---Choice of landlord---Even if more than one premises were available with the landlord and he/she chose to occupy for personal need a particular one, the tenant had no right to challenge such choice of the landlord. (c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.16---Defense, striking off---Scope---Striking off defense in the case was not a mere technicality---Refusal to strike off defense amounted to denying statutory right accrued to the landlord---Use of word "shall" in S. 16(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 left no room for the Rent Controller to form even 'a humble opinion' to deny a statutory right accrued to landlord.Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.