2015 MLD 1468 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Full text

RUKHSANA HIDAYATULLAH VS Syed BAHAUDDIN Landlord and Tenant--TERM , Transfer of Property Act 1882--55 , S. 55(1) (a) & (5) (d)---Rights and liabilities of buyer and seller of the property---Scope---Landlord and tenant---Seller of the property was bound to disclose all the encumbrances, charges, dues against a property to the buyer---Buyer had prerogative to purchase the property after having knowledge with or without encumbrances---If buyer had purchased a property with all the liabilities then the encumbrances that were attached to the said property would automatically transfer to the buyer---Tenant, in the present case, had paid 'pagri' to the previous owners---New owner had stepped into the shoes of previous owners after purchase of suit property---New owner was bound by all the deeds and agreements executed between previous owners and tenant after purchase of property---New owner became absolute owner of the property after taking over possession and its charge and payment of entire consideration amount---New owner was entitled for every benefit of the property and at the same time was also responsible for all encumbrances attached to the said property---Ownership of property would pass to the new owner on completion of sale transaction who was bound to pay all the encumbrances attached to the property---Previous owners had no more concern with the property in question nor in any manner were responsible for any of its liability---Tenant was occupying the premises against payment of nominal amount as rent---Liabilities attached to the property was the reason of lesser amount of sale transaction of the same---New owner despite having knowledge of the liabilities attached to the property purchased the same---New owner was beneficiary of eviction of tenant from the shop in question whereas re-payment of amount of 'pagri' was subject to such ejectment---New owner of the property was responsible for payment of the amount of premium received by the previous owners against the shop in question---Had the tenant not been evicted from the premises in question, there would have been no demand of payment of premium---New owner of premises himself opted to get eviction of the tenant---Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit to the extent of payment of amount of pagri to the tenant but responsibility had been wrongly fixed---Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were modified---Suit filed by the tenant for recovery of amount of premium was decreed against new owner of the property who should pay the said amount within a specified period---Appeal was accepted partly.