Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ATTAUL HAQ VS Respondent: MASOOD ALI WARSIHonorable Justice ABDUL RAZZAK A. THAHIMShah Maqsood Ahmad,Muhammad Ahsan Shaikh
[Karachi]
Before Abdul Razzak A. 7halum and Abdul Rasool Agha, JJ
ATTAUL HAQ and 6 others‑‑‑Appellants
versus
Mirza MASOOD ALI WARSI‑‑‑Respondent
First Regular Appeal No. 935 of 1986, heard on 21st February, 1989.
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 2(t)‑‑‑Word "landlord"‑‑‑Definition‑‑‑Word `landlord' not only includes owner of premises, but also the person for the time being authorised or entitled to receive rent in respect of the premises‑‑‑ Brother of deceased owner of premises who had let out premises to tenant and was receiving rent from tenant, being himself landlord, after his death, held, his successors would also be entitled to receive rent from tenant for the time being.
Shah Maqsood Ahmad for Appellants.
Muhammad Ahsan Shaikh for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 21st February, 1989.
JUDGMENT ABDUL RAZZAK A. THAHIM, J.‑‑This First Rent Appeal is directed against the order dated 24‑6‑1986 of Vth Sr. Civil Judge and Rent Controller Karachi East whereby he dismissed the rent case on the ground that there 'exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
The facts are that rent case was filed by appellant under Section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on the ground of default. The respondent used to pay rent to father of the appellant namely Munshi Muhammad Ibrahim.
I have heard Mr. Shah Maqsood Ahmad learned counsel for the appellant. He has argued that Munshi Muhammad Ibrahim and deceased Abdul Hameed are brothers. The premises were let out to respondent by late Munshi Muhammad Ibrahim and he used to pay rent but ail of sudden he stopped making payment therefore rent case was filed.Mr. Mohammad Ahsan Shaikh appearing for the respondent submitted that appellants are not the landlords therefore there exists no relationship after the death of Abdul Hameed.
The premises in question are in the name of Abdul Hameed who is stated to have died. The rent was being paid by the respondent to late Munshi Muhammad Ibrahim father of appellants. The simple point in this rent case is that who is entitled to receive the rent. The Rent Controller in this case has not applied his mind properly. On this reference is made to Section 2(t) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 where the definition of landlord is given. 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. Admittedly the rent was being received by late Munshi Muhammad Ibrahim on behalf of his brother Abdul Hameed and it was being paid all along by the respondent. It is clear that Abdul Hameed has died and appellant is nephew and no other person has appeared and claimed the rent from the respondent. Tentatively I am of the opinion that appellants are entitled to receive the rent for the time being. In these circumstances the order of the Rent Controller is set aside and appeal is allowed.
H.B.T./A‑628/K Appeal allowed.