Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Syed ABDUL HAI VS Respondent: MUJIBUL HAQ
1988 M L D 1386
1988 M L D 1386
[Karachi]
Before Ajmal Mian, J
Syed ABDUL HAI‑‑Appellant
versus
MUJIBUL HAQ and another‑‑Respondents
First Rent Appeal No.777 of 1982, decided on 22nd December, 1987.
Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑---
‑‑‑Ss.15 & 21‑‑Title‑‑Appellant not a party to rent case, filing appeal against order of ejectment passed against respondent who was held by Rent Controller as tenant of another respondent‑‑Appellant stated that he occupied premises in his own right as owner anti had filed a civil suit to agitate question of title‑‑Question whether appellant was owner of premises in question, held, could not be agitated in Rent Appeal as proper forum was Civil Court through a suit which appellant had already filed‑‑Appeal dismissed in circumstances.
Syed Ansar Hussain for Appellant.
Kamaluddin for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1987.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against an order dated 16‑11‑1981 passed by the learned XIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller at Karachi in Rent Case No.2084 of 1978 ordering the ejectment of respondent No.2 in the present appeal. The appellant, who was not a party to the above rent case has filed the present appeal.
2. The case of the present appellant is that factually he is in possession of the premises in his own right as the owner of the premises as the plot was unauthorizedly occupied. It also seems that the appellant has already Filed a Civil Suit to agitate the question of title. 1 'he learned Rent Controller has held that respondent No.2 was the tenant of respondent No.1 and that he committed default and on the basis of that the ejectment order has been passed.
3. In my view, the question whether the appellant is the owner of the premises in question cannot be agitated in this appeal as the proper forum is the Civil Court through a suit, which the appellant has already filed.
4. I am, therefore, of the view that the appeal has no merits. The appellant may prosecute that suit in accordance with law. The appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs
M.Y.H./A‑318/K Appeal dismissed.