Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHAFI VS Respondent: PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION
1988 S C M R 678
1988 S C M R 678
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, S. A.Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Petitioner
versus
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.349‑K of 1987, decided on 26th January, 1988.
(From the judgment of the Sind High Court passed in F.R.A. No.289 of 1984 on 25‑6‑1987).
Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.15, 18 & 21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Ejectment‑‑Default in payment of rent‑‑Change of ownership‑‑Intimation to person occupying premises on behalf of tenant‑‑Validity of‑‑Ejectment application allowed by Rent Controller but rejected in appeal by High Court‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that respondent‑tenant had failed to pay rent even to the former landlord and withheld the payment of rent to new landlord for no justification and hence question of default was not decided by High Court in proper perspective of facts of the case; and that requirement of S.18 of Ordinance (XVII of 1979) was satisfied inasmuch as intimation of transfer of ownership was duly given to the person occupying the premises on behalf of respondent‑tenant‑ Appeal ordered to be heard expeditiously on present record.
Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs.Majida Razvi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing 26th January, 1988.
ORDER
S.A.NUSRAT, J.‑‑The dispute in this petition relates to rented premises bearing No.B‑18, 41 KDA Scheme No.1 Karachi, which were rented out to the respondent by the petitioner's brother Muhammad Abdullah, who was then the owner of the property. The disputed property was transferred to the petitioner by Muhammad Abdullah, who, by a letter of attornment, addressed to Chief Medical Officer, PIA, asked him to pay rent due from 1st. May, 1980 onwards to the petitioner. After exchange of certain letters, the petitioner, on 17‑3‑1981, filed an application for eviction of the respondent under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground of default. The case was defended by the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that no notice was given to the PIA regarding the transfer of the premises and the service of the alleged letter of attornment on the Chief Medical Officer did not amount to valid intimation of transfer to the PIA, as the said officer had no statutory authority in the matter. The rent application was, however, allowed by the Rent Controller on 5‑2‑1984. The respondent, being aggrieved of the said order, filed an appeal before the High Court, which was allowed as per impugned judgment.
2. It was, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had failed to pay rent even to the former landlord and withheld the payment of rent to the new landlord for no justification and hence question of default was not decided by the learned High Court in the proper perspective of the facts of the case. It was also contended that the requirement of section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, was satisfied inasmuch as intimation of transfer was duly given to the person occupying the premises on behalf of the respondent.
3. The above contentions, inter alia, require examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,500. The appeal will be heard on the same record with permission to the parties to file such documents as may be necessary. The hearing of the appeal may be fixed in April 1988.
M. I./M‑348/S Leave granted.