Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABID HUSSAIN VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD MAZHAR
1992 M L D 1740
1992 M L D 1740
[Karachi]
Before Muhammad Aslam Arain, J
ABID HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ‑‑‑ Respondent
F.RA. No.839 of 1988, decided on 24th November, 1991.
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss.2(f)(j), 15 & 19(5)‑‑‑Ejectment application‑‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by respondent and Rent Controller after recording evidence, dismissed ejectment application holding that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties‑‑‑Judgment of Rent Controller showed that neither points for determination as envisaged by S.19(5) of Ordinance were stated nor issues were mentioned in that judgment‑‑‑Judgment did not show as on what point finding was recorded while passing that judgment‑‑‑Rent Controller had given findings on certain issues, but what were those issues or what were points for determination before him, had not been stated‑‑‑Findings of Rent Controller not being in conformity with provisions of S.19(5) of Ordinance, same could not be, sustained.
Riazuddin for Appellant.
Mazhar Imam for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 17th:of 1991.
JUDGMENT
The appellant, who is a landlord, has filed an application under section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against the respondent on the grounds of default, personal need and conversion of premises to use other than for which it was let out. The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application of the appellant by order dated 28‑8‑1988 and this Appeal is directed against the said order.
2. The facts in brief are that the Appellant claimed to be the owner and landlord of Shop No.87, "A" Area, Malir Colony, Karachi (hereinafter to be called as the `disputed premises') by virtue of lease deed in his favour executed by K.DA. on 28th March, 1984. The respondent was shown to be a tenant in respect of the disputed premises at the rate of monthly rent of Rs.200. It was stated that the respondent had not paid rent from October, 1984 and was a defaulter. It was also stated that the respondent was using the premises for the purpose other than for which it was let out to him. The appellant also stated that he was serving in P.IA. and was due to retire after completion of 25 years service in December, 1985 and the premises were, therefore, required by him for his personal need.
3. The respondent appeared in pursuance of the summons and filed written statement on 23‑12‑1985. He denied that he was the tenant of the appellant and asserted that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He also stated that he was in occupation of the disputed premises 1969 in his own rights. On coming to know that the appellant had obtained lease of the disputed premises from K.DA. he filed suit in the Civil Court for declaration and cancellation of lease and for injunction. This suit was filed by him in December, 1985.
4. The evidence of the parties was recorded whereafter the trial Court passed the impugned judgment, holding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and consequently dismissed the ejectment application.
5. I have heard the learned Advocate at length and gone through the R&P of the lower Court. Under subsection (5) of section 19 of the Ordinance the procedure to be followed by the Rent Controller in deciding applications is provided. Subsection (5) of section 19 lays down as under:‑
"The Controller shall, instead of formally framing issues, arising between the parties, state them briefly in the judgment and shall record findings on each such issue separately."
The perusal of the judgment shows that no such points for determination o issues were stated by the learned Rent Controller in the judgment. It is not shown as to on what point the finding was being recorded while passing the judgment. The learned Rent Controller has given findings on issue No.1 in the first instant and then on issues Nos. 2 and 3 but what were these issues or what were the points for determination before him have not been stated. This is not in conformity with the provisions of subsection (5) of section 19 of the Ordinance. For this reason alone the findings in the judgment cannot be sustained. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned lower Court. He should briefly state the point for the determination arising between the parties and record findings on issues separately. The learned Rent Controller shall hear the parties and pass fresh judgment in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
H.B.T./A‑1177/K Order accordingly.