1295/2018 Const. P. Makhdoom Hussam-ul-Haq (Petitioner) V/S Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 14-DEC-18
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908 ), O. XLI, Rr. 25/27----Eviction of tenant---Personal bona fide need of landlord for his son---Scope---Powers of Appellate Court to remand the case---Scope ---Appellate Court remanded the case for adducing evidence of the son of the landlord for whom the rented premised was required---Petitioner/landlord contended that he required the rented premises in good faith for his son who had become a doctor ---Respondent/tenant contended that he needed three years as he was running school at the demised premises---Validity---Impugned order seemed to be contrary to the requirement of O. XLI, R. 25, C.P.C. whereby the Appellate Court had authority to remand the case for trial to the Court whose decree was being challenged by the aggrieved party but such authority had limited parameters---Such powers could be exercised only when the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the Trial Court had (i) omitted to frame or try an issue , or (ii) to determine any question of fact essential to the right/title of the suit / proceedings---Appellate Court, in the present case, had not observed that the issue of personal bonafide need of the landlord was not properly framed nor it had even commented on the very fact that the issue had been decided contrary to evidence, instead it had framed an issue out of the context of the dispute before the Rent Controller----Need to produce son in evidence by the landlord for whom the premises was required had never been fatal for the case of the landlord seeking eviction of tenant on the ground of such need---Appellate Court had not commented on the orders passed by the Rent Controller but it had set aside the same through the remand order---Order of remand by Appellate Court in given facts of the case was contrary to the facts, law and the question raised by it as additional issue was neither essential for the "right decision" in the case on point of personal need of landlord---Such was outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to decide whether doctor was eligible to start hospital in the premises in question---Impugned remand order was, therefore, patently illegal and Appellate Court had improperly exercised its jurisdiction---Appellate Court had failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record---Unusual long period of time could not be granted for vacating the premises in such matters---High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court and granted eight months time to the respondent to shift his school from the rented premises---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.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.