| Case ID |
2e72fb64-89d8-4b4a-82aa-153eca97fe9c |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No.272 of 1994 |
| Decision Date |
May 30, 1994 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, Syed Hassan Aji, setting aside the earlier judgment of the High Court of Sindh and restoring the ejectment order issued by the Rent Controller. The respondent, Muhammad Hanif, was granted four months to vacate the premises and comply with the rent obligations, failure of which the appellant may proceed with execution of the ejectment order. The court held that the appellant was entitled to invoke section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance despite owning residential premises, as the legal requirements were satisfactorily met and prior cases and evidential support upheld the appellant's position. |
| Summary |
A comprehensive judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No.272 of 1994, dated May 30, 1994, addressed the legal dispute between petitioner Syed Hassan Aji and respondent Muhammad Hanif regarding the eviction of the tenant under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979). The case originated from an initial ejectment application filed by the landlord under section 15, citing personal reasons such as advanced age and infirmity to discontinue business as a hawker. The Rent Controller had granted the eviction order, which was later appealed and overturned by the High Court of Sindh in F.R.A. No.74 of 1993.
Subsequently, the landlord, after turning 60, invoked section 14 of the Ordinance to seek ejectment on the grounds of personal necessity, serving notice on the tenant. The tenant appealed this decision, leading to a series of legal examinations and precedents being cited. The High Court had initially set aside the Rent Controller's ejectment order, considering procedural delays and the landlord's continued occupation of a portion of the building.
However, upon appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinized the applicability of section 14 versus section 15, emphasizing that under section 14, the landlord is not required to prove a bona fide or prima facie need, unlike section 15. The Supreme Court highlighted that the landlord’s application was timely and justified, nullifying the High Court’s dismissal based on the alleged delay. The Court referenced several cases, including Hafiz Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Ilyas and others, to determine that the landlord met the legal criteria for eviction under the Ordinance.
The decision underscored that the landlord's ownership of other premises did not invalidate the application under section 14, provided there was no nexus between the landlord's possession of another portion of the building and the suit premises. Furthermore, the Court dismissed objections regarding the adequacy of the notice served, reinforcing that minor technical omissions do not render the notice invalid if the essential information was conveyed.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appellant’s appeal, reinstating the Rent Controller’s ejectment order and providing the respondent four months to vacate the premises while ensuring the landlord fulfilled rental obligations. This landmark ruling clarifies the distinctions between sections 14 and 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, reinforcing landlords' rights under specific conditions and streamlining the eviction process for genuine personal needs.
Key aspects of the case include the interpretation of legislative provisions within property law, the procedural integrity of eviction notices, and the balance between tenant protections and landlord rights. By analyzing prior judgments and statutory frameworks, the Supreme Court provided judicial clarity, enhancing the legal landscape for property rental disputes in Sindh, Pakistan. This case serves as a critical reference for legal practitioners and property owners navigating similar eviction proceedings, highlighting the importance of timely applications and the correct legal categorization under the pertinent sections of the Ordinance. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
High Court of Sindh,
Rent Controller Karachi
|
| Judges |
AJMAL MIAN,
WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Imran Ahmed,
Talmiz S. Burney,
MA Qarni
|
| Petitioners |
Syed HASSAN AJI
|
| Respondents |
MUHAMMAD HANEEF
|
| Citations |
1994 SLD 432,
1994 PLD 716
|
| Other Citations |
Hafiz Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Ilyas PLD 1989 SC 356,
Manzoor Hussain v. Mst. Naheed Akhtar and 14 others 1991 MLD 724,
Ghulam Muhammad v. Zahir Ahmad Khan 1986 CLC 681,
Arshad Butt v. Manzoor Ahmad 1992 CLC 723,
Abdul Majid v. Mst. Naimun Nisa Begum 1985 SCMR 239,
Bakhsh Elahi v. Qazi Wasif 1985 SCMR 291,
Iqbal Yousuf v. Kishwar Jehan 1991 SCMR 864
|
| Laws Involved |
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979),
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
|
| Sections |
14,
15,
Art.185(3)
|