2026 YLR 173 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

Abdul Karim Khan VS M/s Shevron Pakistan Limited Ss.1, 5, 17 & Preamble---Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15---eviction petition before Rent Controller---Maintainability---Property situated within limits of Cantonment area---Jurisdiction of Rent Controller---If property is situated within territorial limits of Cantonment area the provisions of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 would become applicable---The petitioner/landlord filed a rent case before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of respondent No.1/tenant from a tenement on the ground of default in rent payment---The Rent Controller, however, refused to assume jurisdiction holding that the matter fell under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 rather than the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---The petitioner's appeal was dismissed affirming the Rent Controller's decision---The petitioner/landlord then filed the present Constitutional petition before the High Court challenging the concurrent findings of both lower courts regarding jurisdiction and seeking eviction of the respondent/ tenant from the tenement---Question for determination before the High Court was as to "Whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in respect of a property situated within the territorial limits of a cantonment area, or whether such jurisdiction exclusively lay under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963"?---Held: Section 1 and Preamble of the Act 1963 indicated that the same was applicable to certain classes of buildings and tenements "within the limits of the cantonment areas"---Moreover, S.5 of the Act 1963 specifically ousted the jurisdiction of any other court, other than the one established under the Act 1963---The tenement lay within the territorial limits of the cantonment and therefore the provisions of the Act 1963 were applicable thereto---Courts below had correctly refused to assume jurisdiction in the matter---Concurrent findings of courts below required no interference---Present Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.