Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAHID ALI KHAN VS Respondent: HAMID SIDDIQUI and 2 otherss
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Aziz-ur-Rehman Title: SHAHID ALI KHAN vs HAMID SIDDIQUI and 2 otherss Case No.: Constitutional Petition No.S-1395 of 2011 Date of Judgment:2013-11-22 Reported As: 2014 YLR 1754 Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner [Applicant-Landlord] has questioned the Order passed by learned IVth Additional Judge, Karachi Central dated 15-1-2011 [Annexure 'A' to MoP] whereby the order passed by the learned IVth Rent Controller District Central, Karachi dated 19-3-2011 [Annexure 'B' to MoP] was upheld under which order the petitioner's Ejectment Application bearing Rent Case No.675/2007 [Shahid Ali Khan v. Hamid Hussain Siddiqui through his legal heir/widow Mst. Hina Hamid Siddiqui] against the respondent No.1 [Opponent-Tenant] was dismissed. 2. Relevant facts of the case in the background are that. 3. The petitioner in his Ejectment Application bearing No.675 of 2007, had claimed to have purchased the property bearing Shop No.A-1, Ground Floor, ST-II, situated at KDA Flats, Nagan Chowrangi, Sector 11-H, North Karachi [hereinafter means the 'demised premises'] from its previous owner and landlord namely Mr. Hafeez-ur-Rehman Khan son of Fazl-ur-Rehman Khan through his first attorney Mst. Nighat Zahid widow of Zahid Talhat Zaman Khan [late] by virtue of agreement of sale dated 19-10-2006 and again through his second attorney Mrs. Mehreen Khan wife of Muhammad Arshad Iqbal through another agreement of sale dated 20-12-2006. 4. According to the petitioner, the alleged registered General Power of Attorney dated 3rd July, 2006 in favour of Mst. Nighat Zahid was subsequently revoked through another registered document [i.e. Revocation of General Power of Attorney dated 16-12-2006] duly signed and executed by its executant Hafizur-Rehman Khan son of Fazal-ur-Rehman Khan. 5. On the same date 16-12-2006 another registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Mrs. Mehreen Khan wife of Muhammad Iqbal Khan was signed and executed by Hafiz-ur-Rehman Khan
---
## Page 2
son of Fazl-ur-Rehman Khan. On the basis whereof, per assertions, second Agreement of Sale dated 20-12-2006 was entered into between the parties [i.e. Hafizur Rehman Khan through his attorney Mrs. Mehreen Khan as Vendor and Shahid Ali Khan as Vendee. 6. Per claim of the petitioner the 'demised premises' was thereafter transferred in his name vide transfer order dated 8-1-2007 [Exh. 'D/7'] issued by CDGK, but without having any 'registered document of title' in his favour. At the time of first Agreement of Sale dated 19-10-2006, per petitioner's stand he 'had visited the 'demised premises' which was being run under the 'name' and 'style' of 'Hamid Rent-A-Car'. The previous owner namely Hafiz-ur-Rehman Khan, per claim, had also introduced the petitioner to the Opponent/ Tenant [Hamid Hussain Siddiqui son of Imdad Hussain Siddiqui], as the new 'owner' of the ' demised premises'. 7. Per averments in the Ejectment Application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 [hereinafter abbreviated as SRPO, 1979], a Notice [Exh. 'A/21 was also served upon Hamid Hussain Siddiqui of Hamid Rent-A-Car' about the purchase of the 'demised premises'. According to the petitioner the rent of the 'demised premises' as already fixed was Rs.12,500 p.m. [Rupees Twelve Thousand Five Hundred only]. Further, per averments in the Rent Application under section 15 of SRPO, 1979 [Rent Case No.675/2007], the Tenant was also asked about the enhancement of rent from Rs.12,500 to Rs.15,000. 8. According to the petitioner, upon such 'demand of enhancement' in rent, the respondent kept the petitioner busy in negotiations and perhaps due to annoyance filed MRC No.784/2006 and had thus started the depositing of rent in MRC No.784/2006 [Hamid Hussain Siddiqui through legal heir Mst. Hina Hamid Siddiqui] in the Court of 1st. Sr. Civil Judge/Rent Controller Karachi Central. 9. Moreover, the respondent [Tenant] instead of paying the rent @ Rs.12,500 to the petitioner as demanded, dishonestly plus with mala fide intention since then, is depositing rent @Rs.7,000 [Rupees Seven Thousand only] per month in MRC No.784/2006 filed under section 10 [3] of SRPO, 1979, by the respondent in the court of Sr. Civil Judge & Rent Controller 1st, Central, Karachi. Further, the respondent No.1 also had committed 'default' in paying of electricity bills. The outstanding amount at the relevant time on account of non-payment of ' electricity bills' was about Rs.1,00,000 [Rupees One Lac only]. According to the petitioner the respondent [Tenant] thus was/is a chronic 'defaulter' both in respect of monthly rent and electricity bills. 10. Besides, the petitioner needed the 'demised premises' for his personal bona fide use as the petitioner had also no other source of income so he wanted to utilize the same for his livelihood. Notwithstanding, the genuine demand' of the petitioner for vacating the 'demised premises', the respondent avoided to vacate the 'demised premises' on raising pseudo pleas. The prayer sought in Rent Case No.675/2007 [Shahid All Khan v. Hamid Hussain Siddiqui (Late) through his legal heir/ widow, Mrs. Hamid Siddiqi] read as follows: "(a) To direct the opponent to vacate the demised premises bearing Shop No.A-1, Ground Floor, ST-H, situated at KDA Flats, Nagan Chorangi, Sector 11-H, North Karachi, Karachi forthwith and hand over its vacant and peaceful possession in favour of the applicant having made the same unencumbered from any possible bar created by the opponent. . (b) To direct the opponent to pay the arrears of monthly rents from October, 2006 @ Rs. 15,000 and also till disposal of this case as well as he be directed to clear all the amenity charges viz. Electricity bills, etc. (c) Any other relief/relief(s), which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 11. On the other hand, the stand taken by the respondent [Tenant] in the written statement inter alia was to the effect that the Rent Case No.675/2007 is neither maintainable on the ground of 'default' nor on the ground of 'bona fide need'. Not only this, the same is incompetent in law, as neither the petitioner is 'owner' of the 'demised premises nor 'Landlord' as being claimed by the petitioner. Per
---
## Page 3
averments, the 'demised premises' was allotted by KDA to the late Zahid Talhat Zaman Khan who died/expired in the month of August, 2006. Further, upon the death of 'Landlord' all power of attorneys, if any, besides having become infructuous are null and void. 12. Further the legal heirs of Zahid Talhat Zaman Khan [i.e. Mst. Nighat Zahid widow of Zahid Talhat Zaman, Mehreen Khan daughter of Zahid Talhat Zaman Khan, Bushra Zahid daughter of Zahid Talhat Zairian Khan, Imdad Ali son of Zahid Talhat Zaman Khan, Awais Zahid son of Zahid Talhat Zaman Khan and Rimsha Khan daughter of Zahid Talhat Zaman Khan] have neither filed any SMA for obtaining the Letter of Administration from the concerned District and Session Judge, Central at Karachi nor the L.Rs. Have ever executed any sale agreement with petitioner the 'so-called Landlord'. Per respondent's version upon death of the Landlord viz. Zahid Talhat Zaman Khan, in August, 2007, her widow Mst. Nighat Zahid is continuously receiving the monthly rent from the respondent [Tenant]. However, on account of non-issuing of rent receipts, MRC No.784/2006 [Hamid Hussain Siddiqui v. Zahid Talhat Zaman Khan] was filed in the Court of Sr. Civil Judge & Rent Controller Ist Central, Karachi. And since then the rent is being deposited in the aforesaid MRC. 13. According to the respondent the 'demised premises' was obtained by Hamid Hussain Siddiqui from late Zahid Talhat Zaman Khan son of Fazlur-Rehman Khan on 17-8-2002 on monthly rent @ Rs.7000 including electricity charges. Apart from the above, the respondent has also paid Rs.1,50,000 [Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand only] as 'security deposit' to the Landlord which indeed is payable to the respondent at the time of vacating 'demised premises'. Besides, Rs.55,000 have also been spent on repairing and decoration of 'demised premises' by the respondent. 14. The letter of transfer dated 8-1-2007 [Exh. 'All'] allegedly issued by CDGK is a 'fraudulent and 'forged document'. The notice about intimation of purchase [Sauda] of the 'demised premises' [Exh2A/21 does not bear any date and allegedly it has been sent to Zahid Hussain. Siddiqui after his death. Per averments, Hamid Hussain Siddiqui died on 22-11-2006. Per averments, the petitioner is neither 'owner' of the 'demised premises' nor 'Landlord' as claimed. The' Ejectment Application besides, misconceived is mis-leading and as such is liable to be dismissed with cost. 15. In view of 'pro' and 'contra' averments made by parties in their respective pleadings, the learned IVth Rent Controller District Central, Karachi framed the following points for determination : "(1) Whether there exists relationship as landlord and Tenant between the parties? (2) What should the order be?" 16. The parties went on trial. The petitioner in support of his contention filed his 'affidavit-in- evidence' as well as 'affidavit-in-evidence' of three other witnesses viz. Rashid Ali Khan, Nadeem Danish and Abdul Hafeez Ahmed. All the witnesses were duly 'cross-examined' by the respondent's counsel. Likewise, the widow of the respondent viz. Mst. Hina Hameed filed her 'affidavit-in- evidence' and she was also 'cross-examined'. Besides 'affidavit-in-evidence' of Nighat Zahid widow of Zahid Talhat Zaman Khan [Late] and Farasat Hussain Siddiqui were also filed. Both the witnesses were also 'cross examined' by the petitioner' s. Counsel. 17. Upon conclusion of the evidence, the learned IVth Rent Controller District Central, Karachi after hearing of arguments was pleased to dismiss the Ejectment Application [Rent Case No.675/2007] for want of 'relationship as landlord and Tenant' between the petitioner - and respondent No. 1. The operative part of order dated 19-3-2011 [Annexure 'B' to MoP] reads as follows:- "In view of admission of the applicant and his witnesses, he failed to establish relationship as landlord and tenant between the parties, therefore, answer of this point is not proved. Point No.2 ' In view of my findings on Point No.1, ejectment application is hereby dismissed accordingly." 18. Upon dismissal of the Rent Case No.675 of 2007 [Shahid Ali Khan vs. Hamid Hussain Siddiqui through LR Mrs. Hina Hamid Siddiqui] the applicant preferred F.R.A. No.70 of 2011 [Shahid All Khan v. Hamid Hussain through his widow. Mrs. Hina Hamid Siddiqui in the Court of IVth Addl. District Judge,
---
## Page 4
Karachi Central, but the same was also dismissed on 15-11-2011 [Annexure 'A' to MoP] by upholding the order dated 19-3-2011 [Annexure 'B' to MoP] passed by the learned IVth Rent Controller, District Central, Karachi. The operative part of Order dated 15-11-2011 reads as follows:- "These all facts constrained me to hold that the appellant has not approached the court of law with clean hand and has miserably failed to prove his case according to the Articles 79, 80 & 117 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, consequently the order dated 19-3-2011 does not require any interference the same is upheld and appeal of the appellant is dismissed with no order as to costs." 19. On 30-10-2013, when the above petition came up before me, I heard Mr. Muhammad Sohail H.K. Rana along with Jamaluddin Ansari, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Rab Nawaz Qureshi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and also minutely perused the available record with their valuable assistance. 20. Mr.. Sohail. H.K. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order dated 15-11-2011 passed by learned IV-Additional District Judge, Karachi Central in F.R.A. No. 70 of 2011 [Annexure 'A' to MoP] and order dated 19-3-2011 passed by IVth Rent Controller, District Central, Karachi in R.C. No.675 of 2007 [Annexure 'B' to MoP] are contrary to law and facts and also suffer from 'non-reading' and 'misreading' of evidence. Per learned counsel both the learned courts below have committed serious illegality in passing the impugned orders by ignoring inter alia the two 'Agreements of Sale' entered into between Hafiz-ur-Rehman Khan through his two attorneys and the petitioner. 21. Mr. Sohail H. K. Rana, learned counsel for petitioner further urged that courts below have also failed to take into consideration the clear-cut 'default' committed by the respondent No.1 both in payment of monthly rent and 'electricity bills'. Per learned counsel, the courts below have also ignored to discuss and/or considered the 'bona fide requirement' of the petitioner Shahid Ali Khan vis-a-vis. The 'demised premises'. Per learned counsel since the petitioner is a 'lawful owner' of the 'demised premises' as such in his capacity as a ' owner/landlord' he had rightly invoked the jurisdiction of Rent 'Controller for Ejectment of the respondent [Tenant]. The evidence led by Mst. Nighat Zahid amongst others from respondent's side, per learned counsel, has been satisfactorily controverted/dispelled and disproved by the petitioner's side of evidence by producing sufficient documentary evidence regarding his 'ownership' in respect of 'demised premises'. 22. Next, learned counsel forcefully urged that the 'demised premises' is belonging to the petitioner and it is he who besides claiming the outstanding amount of rent had rightly sought the ejectment of the respondent No.1 [Tenant] from the 'demised premises'. Mr. Sohail H. K. Rana learned for the petitioner further submitted that Mr. Hafiz-ur-Rehman Khan as being owner of the 'demised premises' [the previous owner of the 'demised premises'] had executed a registered General Power Attorney dated 3-7-2006 in favour of Mrs. Nighat Zahid. In terms of the registered General Power of Attorney of 3-7-2006, the attorney inter alia was empowered to dispose of the 'demised premises'. Pursuant to execution of such General Power of Attorney the attorney viz. Mrs. Nighat Zahid Khan had subsequently, entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 29-10-2006 with the petitioner. Mrs. Nighat Zahid Khan per learned counsel had also received Rs.6,00,000 [Rupees Six Lac only] as part- payment out of a lump sum price of Rs.17,00,000 [Rupees Seventeen Lacs only] through a Pay Order No.1124682 dated 19- 10-2006 drawn on Soneri Bank Ltd, North Karachi from the petitioner Shahid Ali Khan. The total sale consideration as agreed between the parties was Rs.17,00,000 [Rupees Seventeen Lacs only]. 23. Mr. H.K. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner focused my attention on clauses 1, 2 & 6 of the agreement of sell dated 19-10-2006. For ready reference the..: same are reproduced herein below:- "1. THAT the vendor has this day received a sum of Rs.6,00,000 (Rupees Six Lac Only) (Through Pay- Order No.1124682 dated 19-10-2006 drawn on Soneri Bank Ltd, North Karachi, Karachi) from the
---
## Page 5
aforesaid Vendee, as PART PAYMENT towards the sale price of the SAID PROPERTY, receipt whereof the said Vendor hereby do fully admit and acknowledge and passed a separate receipt as well. 2. THAT the Balance of Rs.11,00,000 (Rupees Eleven Lacs Only) shall be paid by the Vendee to the Vendor at the time of Vacant Peaceful Possession & Registration of Sub-Power in favour of Vendee/ Nominee/ Submitting Transfer documents in CDGK (KDA-WING) with approval statement by DDO Within/Upto 01-Month from the date of these presents, at which time the Vendor will hand over all the documents in original of the SAID PROPERTY to the VENDEE. That some documents are mortgaged which will be released by the Vendor and hand over to the Vendee. 6. THAT if the Vendor fails to complete the formalities and fails to finalize the transaction within/upto 01-Month. She/He will have to pay the advance money Rs.6,00,000 (Rupees Six Lacs only) and penalty of Rs. 6,00,000 (Rupees Six Lacs only) to the Vendee." [Underlining is mine]. 24. Per learned counsel for the petitioner, both the courts below either ignored or otherwise, avoided to take into consideration, the factum of Revocation of the earlier General Power of Attorney dated 3rd July, 2006 in favuor of Mrs. Nighat Zahid Khan through REVOCATION OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTONREY dated 16-12-2006 and the Ist Agreement of Sale dated 19-10-2006 executed between parties on the basis of revoked General Power of Attorney. Per Mr. Sohail H. K. Rana upon REVOCATION OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY dated 16-12-2006 in favour of Nighat Zahid on 16-12- 2006, a second General Power of Attorney dated 16-12-2006 in favour of Mrs. Mehreen Khan daughter of Nighat Zahid was signed and executed by Mr. Hafiz-ur-Rehman son of Fazal-ur- Rehman. Pursuant to such fresh GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, another Agreement of Sale dated 20-12-2006 was executed between Mrs. Mehreen Khan and the Petitioner. 25. The relevant clauses 1, 2 and 6 of the IInd Agreement of Sale dated 20-12-2006 read as follows:- - "1. THAT the Mother of the Said Vendor has already received a sum of Rs.6,00,000 (Rupees Six Lacs Only) (Through Pay-Order No.1124682 dated 19-10-2006 drawn on Soneri Bank Ltd, North Karachi, Karachi) from the aforesaid Vendee, as PART PAYMENT towards the sale price of the SAID PROPERTY, receipt whereof the said Vendor hereby do fully admit and acknowledge and passed a separate receipt as well. 2. THAT the Balance of Rs.I 1,00,000 (Rupees Eleven Lacs Only) shall be paid by the Vendee to the Vendor at the time of Vacant Peaceful Possession & Registration of Sub-Power in favour of Vendee/ Nominee/ Submitting Transfer documents in CDGK (KDA-WING) with approval statement by DDO Within/Upto 01-Month from the date of these presents, at which time the Vendor will handover all the documents in original of the SAID PROPERTY to the VENDEE. That some documents are mortgaged which will be released by the Vendor and hand over to the Vendee. 6. THAT if the Vendor fails to complete the formalities and fails to finalize the transaction within/upto 01-Month. She/He will have to pay the advance money Rs.6,00,000 (Rupees Six Lacs only) and penalty of Rs.6,00,000 (Rupees Six Lacs only) to the Vendee." [Underlining is mine]. 26. Mrs. Mehreen Khan, per learned counsel, had also appeared before the concerned officer of CDGK and had recorded her statement vis-a-vis sale of 'demised premises' and receipt of sale consideration. Upon recording such statement, the 'demised premises' was thereafter mutated by the City District Government Karachi [in short CDGK] in favour of the petitioner viz. Shahid Ali Khan. Mr. Sohail H. K. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner further contended that Mrs. Nighat Zahid in collaboration with the respondent No.1 [Tenant] at one stage of proceedings had, indeed, attempted to withdraw the amount of rent deposited in MRC No.784/2006 showing herself as 'owner' of the 'demised premises'. 27. However, such attempt could not be materialized as petitioner obtained restraining order from this court in C.P. No.1077 of 2010 [Shahid Ali Khan v. Hamid Siddiqui through LR/wd. Mst. Hina Hamid Siddiqui & 2 othersj. Order dated
---
## Page 6
28-10-2010 passed in C.P.No.1077 of 2010 reads as follows:- "28-10-2010. Mr. Faisal Shahzad Malik, Advocate (1) Allowed (2) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. (3) Notice to respondents Nos.1 and 2. (4) Notice for 12-11-2010. Till then no one should be allowed to withdraw the rent." 28. Lastly, Sohail H. K. Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that both the courts below while, passing the impugned orders, have erred and/or failed to properly visualize and recognize the 'documentary evidence' placed by petitioner oh record. Per, documents placed on record, the petitioner is only 'lawful owner-cum-landlord' of the 'demised premises'. On purchase, per learned counsel, the 'demised premises' has also been transferred/mutated in the name of the petitioner. As such the relationship of the 'landlord' and 'Tenant' has been fully established. 29. Mr. Sohail H. K Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions placed reliance on the following case-law:-- (a) BABOO DIN v. NASROO [1995 MLD 1460] (b) RAFIQ AHMAD through GENERAL ATTORNEY v. RENT CONTROLLER, JACOBABAD AND 3 OTHERS [2006 CLC 989]. (c) MST. SURAYIA BEGUM v. SARDAR SAEED ULLAH [2006 CLC 994] (d) QAIMUDIAN v. QHULAM SHAH [1993 CLC 336]. (e) MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD v. SULTAN AHMED AND ANOTHER [2001 SCMR 678] (f) MEHBOOB AKBER ALVI v. MST. AYESHA SULTANA [1998 CLC 894] (g) HAMEED AND 3 OTHERS v. JITENDRA AND 2 OTHERS [2010 CLC 561] (h) HABIB KHAN v. HAJI HAROON-UR-RESHID [1989 CLC 783] (i) QAMAR ZAMAN v. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER [2008 CLC 431] 30. Conversely, Mr. Rab Nawaz Qureshi, learned counsel for respondent No.1 forcefully argued that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. The petition as framed and filed besides not maintainable in law has been filed with ulterior motives. The petitioner, per Mr. Rab Nawaz Qureshi, has no locus standi to file the rent case as neither the petitioner is landlord` nor 'owner' of the 'demised premises'. Before the Rent Controller IV-Central Karachi, the petitioner has not only failed to establish his 'ownership' over and regarding the 'demised premises' but also failed to establish his status in his capacity as a 'landlord'. Rent Case No.675 of 2006 [Shahid Ali Khan v. Hamid Siddiqui through LR/wd. Mst. Hina Hamid Siddiqui] filed under section 15 of SRPO 1979 indeed was rightly dismissed on 29-3-2011 [Annexure 'B' to MoP] as the relationship between the petitioner and the Tenant even in terms of section 2 of SRPO, 1979 was not established. Likewise, Order passed by learned IVth Addl. Judge, Karachi Central on 15-11-2011 [Annexure 'A' to MoP] is valid and proper. Both orders passed by the courts below are valid and lawful, therefore, need no inter-ference. 31. Apart from the above, another Rent Case No.761/2009 filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1 has already been dismissed by the IVth Rent Controller, Karachi Central on 9-9-2011 for want of 'relationship' of Landlord and Tenant. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner during his 'cross-examination' has clearly admitted that the 'demised premises' was obtained by respondent No.1 [Opponent] on rent from deceased Zahid `Talhat Zaman Khan and not from the petitioner [Applicant]. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 argued with vehemence that in view of absence of any 'Rent Agreement' between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and/or any proofs of payment of rent to the petitioner, the Ejectment application, indeed, was/is incompetent in law as
---
## Page 7
such had rightly been dismissed. The concurrent findings of the courts below are valid, proper and lawful and need no interference under Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. 32. Heard. Gone through the entire record minutely and also considered the submissions of the learned counsel for parties carefully. 33. Before I proceed further to discuss the merits of the case it would be worthwhile to refer to the provisions i.e. 2(f) (i) and (j) of section 2 of SRPO, 1979 which read as follows:-- "2. Definitions:- a) "Landlord" means the owner of the premises and includes a person who is for the time being authorized or entitled to receive rent in respect of such premises. (1) "Rent" includes water charges, electricity charges and such other charges which are payable by the Tenant but are unpaid. "Tenant" means any person who undertakes or is bound to pay rent as consideration for the possession or occupation of any premises by him or by any other person on his behalf and includes:--- (i) any person who continues to be in possession or occupation of the premises after the termination of his tenancy; (ii) heirs of the Tenant in possession or occupation of the premises after the death of the Tenant; " 34. Under the SRPO 1979, the definition of 'landlord' is provided in section 2(f) which means any person who is 'owner' or entitled to receive the rent of the 'demised premises'. Thus any person who is entitled in law to receive the rent does become a 'landlord' and can file an ejectment case under section 15 of SRPO, 1979. Keeping in view this position, I would proceed to examine the two agreements of sale entered into between one Hafiz-ur-Rehman Khan son of Fazl-urRehman Khan through his so-called attorneys viz. Mrs. Nighat Zahid and Mrs. Mehreen Khan, one each and the petitioner [the Applicant]. According to para 3 of the each Agreement of Sale the possession was never handed over to the Vendee. 35. Even it is not clear whether the documents admittedly 'mortgaged' were ever redeemed/released or not. These Agreements of Sale. Also show that balance sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000 [Eleven Lacs only] was payable to the 'Vendor'…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.