1999 MLD 1413 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

SHAHNAZ JUMANI VS NAHEED ZIA 1974 SCMR 519, 1985 CLC 2309, 1986 CLC 2923, PLD 1963 Kar. 213, PLD 1988 SC 190, Specific Relief Act 1877--42 , Specific Relief Act 1877--54 , Specific Relief Act 1877--56 , Specific Relief Act 1877--9 , Specific Relief Act 1877 ----Ss. 42, 56, 54 & 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 15---Temporary injunction, grant of---Entitlement---Relationship of parties after expiry of lease---Mode of eviction from premises in question---New relationship between parties would come into existence on expiry of lease and tenant would become statutory tenant under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Such tenant could not be evicted from premises except on grounds provided in Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Lessor/landlord would not have any right to take back possession of premises from tenant by use of force or by any other means except on filing application for ejectment of tenant on grounds provided in Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Defendant's plea that he had placed his Padlocks on latch of shutters so as to defend the same for plaintiff had abandoned the same and had also posted guards thereon, for protection of premises, was belied by material on record which indicated that defendant had put on his padlocks, in addition to padlock of plaintiff and had posted guard thereon so as to scare away plaintiff and restraining her from carrying on her business---Defendant's effort to break open locks of shop in question was, admittedly, foiled by Chowkidar and neighbouring shopkeepers---Plaintiff had come to Court for protection and enforcement of her rights which could be enforced by the Court---Defendant's plea that plaintiff having claimed damages, no injunction could be granted to her was misconceived---Defendant s such claim was preposterous, opposed to rule of law and maintenance of equilibrium in society---Defendant had not shown that equally efficacious relief could be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding by plaintiff---Suit was, prima facie, not barred under S. 56(i), Specific Relief Act, 1877---Right to occupy and peacefully enjoy possession being right in property, plaintiff was entitled to file suit under Ss. 42 & 54, Specific Relief Act, 1877 for necessary relief--Plaintiff having not been dispossessed need not file suit under S. 9, Specific Relief Act, 1877---Plaintiff, thus, had prima facie case, balance of convenience was in her favour and withholding of relief of ad interim injunction would cause her irreparable loss---Interim injunction was, thus, granted in favour of plaintiff.