Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM vs SHAHID ALI S — 2025 CLC 1418 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM VS SHAHID ALI S. 20---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Question of jurisdiction to be addressed at the outset---Principle---Relationship of landlord and tenant, denial of---Where the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is questioned on the point that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists, the question of jurisdiction has to be addressed first before proceeding to the merits of the case. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1418 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM VS SHAHID ALI Ss. 5 & 20---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---application under S. 12(2) C.P.C.---Maintainability---Powers available to the Rent Controller---Objection regarding maintainability of application under S. 12(2) C.P.C. in light of S. 20 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Validity---Bar under S. 20 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is not absolute and the Rent Controller in an appropriate case may invoke the provisions of the C.P.C.---Moreover, equitable principle of C.P.C. can be invoked by the Rent Controller. Citation Name: 2025 CLC 1418 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM VS SHAHID ALI Ss. 5 & 20---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Eviction petition---Oral tenancy, proof of---Relationship of landlord and tenant, denial of---Proof---Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller---Scope---Respondent No.1 (alleged to be a tenant) claimed that he never remained in possession of the suit property---Copy of rent agreement was not produced by the petitioner (claiming to be a landlady)---The petitioner claimed that her father (purportedly the landlord) had rented out the suit property to the father of respondent No.1 (purportedly the tenant) through an oral agreement in 1988---After predecessor-in-interest of both parties passed away, the respondent allegedly continued as tenant but defaulted on rent, and subsequently, an ex-parte eviction order was passed against him---The respondent challenged the order under S. 12(2), C.P.C., denying any landlord-tenant relationship claiming that he never remained in possession of the property---Respondent's application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed against which he filed civil revision which was allowed, constraining the petitioner (daughter of the purported landlord) to file the present Constitutional petition---The central issue for adjudication was "whether a relationship of landlord and tenant had been established on record in the proceedings culminating in the eviction order passed by the rent controller"?---Held: In the absence of written agreement the burden fell on the party asserting the relationship to prove the same by adducing compelling and unimpeachable evidence from which the court could infer such relationship on the principle of the preponderance of probabilities---Establishment of relationship in absence of written agreement must be supported by a high threshold of evidence---In the present matter, prima facie, the petitioner (successor-in-interest of purported landlord) had not discharged that burden---No rent agreement, receipt, or any other document were produced in order to establish a landlord-tenant relationship---There can be verbal/oral tenancy also but in order to establish such tenancy an evidence of very high standard is required, from which the facts of tenancy is established on the principle of preponderance of probabilities---The Rent Controller had allowed the application only on the ground that no rebuttal had been offered in response to the tenancy claim---However, respondent No. 1 (purported tenant) in the application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. had denied the existence of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and called into question the maintainability of the entire proceedings---Since there was serious dispute regarding relationship between the parties and the petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence in order to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, it was imperative for the Rent Controller to decide the application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. as per directions given in the impugned order and then proceed further---No irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order was pointed out---Rent Controller was directed to decide application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. expeditiously---Constitutional petition being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstance.

Mst. SHAMSHAD BEGUM vs SHAHID ALI S — 2025 CLC 1418 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC