| Case ID |
0afeaf86-0095-437a-9025-d98e7f505a7b |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.P. S-745/2002 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 31, 2003 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 22, 2003 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court upheld the Constitutional Petition No. 745 of 2002 filed by the petitioners, Muhammad Iqbal and another, challenging the lower courts' orders regarding the ejectment case filed by Mst. Saba and others. The court set aside the decisions of the IVth Senior Civil Judge and the IIIrd Additional District Judge, thereby dismissing the ejectment petition against the tenants. The court ruled that the provisions of Section 15(2)(iii)(a) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, were not applicable as the tenant had entered into a bona fide partnership agreement, retaining physical possession of the premises for business purposes without transferring tenancy rights to another person. Consequently, the decision protected the tenants’ rights to continue occupying the rented premises under the terms of the partnership agreement. The court emphasized the importance of the written partnership deed, which preserved the tenant's rights in the event of the firm's dissolution, thereby nullifying the lower court's assumption of subletting without consent. |
| Summary |
In the landmark Constitutional Petition No. 745 of 2002, the Sindh High Court delivered a pivotal decision on October 31, 2003, addressing complex issues surrounding tenancy and partnership agreements under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Petitioners, led by Muhammad Iqbal, challenged the lower courts' rulings to evict them from Rehman Chambers, Adamjee Dawood Road Karachi, asserting their legitimate right to occupy the premises based on a partnership deed. The central legal dispute focused on whether Muhammad Iqbal had unlawfully sublet the rented premises to a financial partner without the landlady's consent, thereby violating Section 15(2)(iii)(a) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance.
The Sindh High Court meticulously evaluated the evidence, including the partnership agreement that explicitly safeguarded the tenant's rights. The court found that the tenant retained physical possession and tenancy rights, while the partnership merely facilitated business operations within the premises. Referencing pivotal case laws such as Saeeda Begum v. Shameem Ahmed and Muhammad Subhan v. Mst. Bilquis Begum, the court emphasized that a bona fide partnership, where the original tenant maintains control and possession, does not equate to subletting.
The court highlighted the necessity for landlords to provide concrete evidence of unauthorized possession transfer. In this case, the evidence presented by the respondents was deemed insufficient to prove that the petitioner had handed over possession unlawfully. The partnership deed submitted by the petitioners clearly stated that the tenancy rights of Petitioner No. 1 would remain unaffected in the event of the firm's dissolution, thereby nullifying any claims of subletting.
Furthermore, the court scrutinized the lower courts' assumptions based on presumptive violations, noting that the partnership agreement provided adequate protection for the tenant's rights. The decision underscored the importance of written agreements in tenancy disputes, ensuring that tenants are not unjustly evicted when legitimate business partnerships are established within rented premises.
By setting aside the decisions of the IVth Senior Civil Judge and the IIIrd Additional District Judge, the Sindh High Court reinforced tenant protections under Sindh law and clarified the nuances between subletting and legitimate business partnerships within commercial real estate. This judgment serves as a critical reference for future cases involving tenancy disputes and partnership dynamics, highlighting the judiciary's role in balancing landlord rights with tenant protections in evolving business contexts. The ruling not only provided relief to the petitioners but also established a precedent that will aid in resolving similar disputes with greater fairness and legal clarity. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Abdullah,
Grindlays Bank Limited,
Khalil-ur-Rahman,
Muhammad Subhan,
Alliance Commercial Corporation,
Mst. Sayyeeda Khatoon,
M.A. Agha,
Mst. Nargis Begum,
Hassan Abbas Zaibule,
Mst. Bilquis Begum
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J
|
| Lawyers |
Jamil-ur-Rehman,
Muhammad Siddique Khatri
|
| Petitioners |
another,
MUHAMMAD IQBAL
|
| Respondents |
others,
Mst. SABA
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 1866 = 2005 PLD 30
|
| Other Citations |
Grindlays Bank Limited and another v. Messrs Alliance Commercial Corporation 1984 CLC 2336,
Mst. Sayyeeda Khatoon v. M.A. Agha 1990 MLD 1715,
Khalil-ur-Rahman v. Mst. Nargis Begum 1993 CLC 246,
Hassan Abbas Zaibule v. Abdullah 1994 CLC 555,
Muhammad Subhan and another v. Mst. Bilquis Begum and 3 others 1994 SCMR 1507,
Saeeda Begum v. Shameem Ahmed 1994 SCMR 791
|
| Laws Involved |
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, XVII of 1979
|
| Sections |
15(2)(iii)(a)
|