| Case ID |
b87511e5-d672-49c3-8fd8-a6582396addc |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
F.R.A. No.842 of 1987 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 21, 1992 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 30, 1992 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal of Ghulam Hussain, who sought to challenge the dismissal of his Rent Application No.609 of 1986. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent, Noor Shah Ali. The petitioner had claimed that the respondent had not paid rent since February 1983 and had made unauthorized alterations to the property. However, the tenancy agreement purportedly executed between the parties was not properly attested as required by law. The court emphasized that the onus was on the petitioner to prove the landlord-tenant relationship, which he failed to do, given that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the respondent was inducted as a tenant. The court cited several precedents to support its decision, underlining that mere ownership does not automatically confer landlord status without valid proof of the tenant's induction and payment of rent. |
| Summary |
In the case of Ghulam Hussain vs. Noor Shah Ali, the Sindh High Court addressed the critical issue of landlord-tenant relationships under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979). The court examined the evidence presented, including a tenancy agreement dated 19-6-1982, which was claimed by the appellant to substantiate his position as the landlord. However, the court found that the agreement was not duly attested, as required by Section 5 of the Ordinance, leading to the conclusion that it lacked legal efficacy. The appellant's claims of unpaid rent and property damage were also scrutinized, but without compelling evidence, the court ruled that the relationship between the parties had not been established. The decision highlights the importance of adhering to legal formalities in tenancy agreements and reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the claimant in disputes regarding landlord and tenant relationships. The case draws upon numerous precedents that illuminate the complexities surrounding property rights and rental agreements, stressing the necessity for clear documentation and proper legal procedures. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO, J
|
| Lawyers |
Mehar Hussain Mesawa,
Zahid Marghoob
|
| Petitioners |
GHULAM HUSSAIN
|
| Respondents |
NOOR SHAH ALI
|
| Citations |
1994 SLD 447,
1994 MLD 36
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Amir v. Additional District Judge and others 1990 SCMR 460,
Mahmood v. Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur and others 1990 SCMR 954,
Mst. Fatima v. Mst. Hanifa 1986 CLC 1613,
Elizar Ali Arhti v. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan and others 1985 SCMR 962,
Gul Dad Khan v. Rahim Shah PLD 1978 Kar. 19,
Qassam v. Dunya Gul 1981 CLC 1743,
Habib Ahmed v. Liaquat Hussain PLD 1985 Kar. 741,
Rahmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and others 1983 SCMR 1064,
Mrs. Kaneez Raza v. Ansar Ali and another 1987 MLD 191,
Mst. Roshan Bi and others v. Munawar Hussain Gil 1987 MLD 3263,
Haji Muhammad Ramzan v. Mian Jamil Shah PLD 1967 Pesh. 190,
Muhammad Ramzan's case PLD 1967 Pesh. 380
|
| Laws Involved |
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)
|
| Sections |
2(f)(j),
5
|