Find a Lawyer

ALI MUHAMMAD versus MOHAN LAI

Article 185 (3) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Section 21 of the West Pakistan Civil Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Section 13 raised the question of law, whether the landlord's rent ordinance 1959. Was filed to evict the tenants. The premises which the hotel was built on can continue, however, the ordinance was canceled by the Sindh Rented Premise Ordinance 1979, which is likely to run a large number of cases for which the Supreme Court's verdict was decided. Was mandatory. application was not competent as the demised premises constitute a hotel to which the provisions of the Ordinance are not applicable. For these reasons, learned Judge in the High Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller by the judgment, dated 18‑5‑1982.

Mr. Munawwar Malik, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court submits that there is conflict of views on the question of law whether the proceedings for eviction of a tenant from hotel premises filed under Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 can continue in spite of repeal of the Ordinance by the Sind Rent Premises Ordinance, 1979. In, this connection reliance was sought to be placed on the observations of this Court in Abdul Rehman v. Haji Mir Ahmed Khan Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑66 of 1982.

Since the question of law raised is likely to govern large number of cases, it is necessary that this Court should pronounce an authoritative decision. Leave is granted. Security Rs.2,000.

It is only appropriate that the appeal arising out of this petition should be heard by a larger Bench, preferably consisting of four Judges. Order accordingly.

M. Y. H. Leave granted.