Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1009 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. Iraj Jawaid vs State Ss

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

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1009 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. Iraj Jawaid VS State Ss. 3, 4, 7 & 8---Illegal dispossession of property---Restoration of possession---Statutory tenant---Licensee---Complaint of the applicant, being tenant, for the restoration of possession in respect of property under discussion was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Record transpired that the applicant/complainant being a Franchisee/Licensee was handed over possession of the subject shop by the Pakistan State Oil (PSO) and such license/agreement was to continue for a period of three years---After expiry of such license period neither any extension was made nor the parties entered into any other agreement---Thus, it was crystal clear that no rent agreement was entered into between the parties in respect of subject property, but, in fact, the PSO had granted franchise in favour of the applicant in respect of the subject property---Meaning thereby that the status of the applicant was not that of a "Statutory Tenant" as provided in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, but she was merely a "licensee"---Licensee could not be equated with a tenant---According to the applicant/complainant on 17-11-2022 respondents Nos.1 to 5 had forcibly obtained signature of her husband over an agreement to vacate the shop/subject property, on which a civil suit was filed and subsequently on 29.12.2022, the respondents forcibly took over possession of the subject premises---However, the applicant had herself admitted that the plaint in the said suit was rejected by the civil Court vide order dated 25.02 2023---Although the complainant claimed her possession over the subject premises but the civil suit was filed by her husband and not by the applicant wherein he claimed his possession over the subject shop and on that basis he obtained interim order dated 02.12.2022, however the same was recalled and the plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Besides, applicant had also filed civil suit which was returned to her in terms of O.VII, R.10 C.P.C. vide order dated 08.09.2017---Bare reading of subsection (1) to S.3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, revealed that protection had been provided to the "owner" and "occupier" against illegal and forcible dispossession---Clause (c) of S.2 of the Act, 2005, defined "occupier" to be "person who was in lawful possession of a property"---Hence, the claim of the applicant/ complainant in instant case that she being lawful occupier/tenant, could not be illegally and forcibly dispossessed by the respondents, was not of much consequence---Applicant was not a statutory tenant, thus was not a lawful occupier as defined under S.2 of the Act---Therefore her such claim carried no weight---Criminal revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1009 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Mst. Iraj Jawaid vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1009 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ