Messrs SIDDIQUI FUND TRUST, KARACHI through Manager vs THE IVTH
This criminal revision application arises from an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East, dismissing the applicant Trust's application under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, filed against a tenant who allegedly encroached upon the applicant's land by constructing an unauthorized room adjacent to the rented flats. The core legal question was whether a tenant's unauthorized construction and occupation of extra land beyond the tenancy premises falls within the purview of illegal dispossession. The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge erred in holding that the tenant does not qualify as a land grabber, noting that all cases of illegal occupation are covered under the statute and a tenant cannot construct additional rooms without approval. Consequently, the court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the matter back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law, affirming that unauthorized extensions by tenants constitute illegal possession.
- Does a tenant's unauthorized construction and occupation of land beyond the rented premises fall within the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
- Can a tenant construct an additional room without the approval of the landlord on the pretext of demolition by a development authority?
- Whether an application under the Illegal Dispossession Act can be dismissed solely on the ground that the occupant is a tenant rather than a land grabber?
- Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005
ORDER
1. MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---The controversy coming in this application is that the applicant being aggrieved of encroachment by his tenant moved the District Court under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. According to the applicant, the respondent No.2 is tenant in respect of Flat Nos. 109 and 110 and a rent proceeding has been filed in respect to this tenement. He submits that over and above the boundary of these flats, the respondent has constructed rooms of 18 x 12 with bathroom adjacent to these flats and thereby has encroached upon the land of applicant Trust. The application of the applicant under Illegal Dispossession Act was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi East on the ground that lady, applicant No.2 is not a land grabber, hence her possession of room does not fall within the meaning of illegal possession.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has cited PLD 2007 SC 427, which clearly defined that all cases of illegal occupation would be covered by the Act.
3. During the course of argument Mr. Muhammad Abdul Hameed, files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2, and submits that some portion of her client's flats were demolished by Layari Extension Way Authority and, therefore, the room has been constructed by a tenant. This explanation has no force as she may seek adjustment from landlady in respect to the rent of the premises, she cannot be allowed to construct at her own, additional room without any approval of applicant Trust.
4. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that since respondent No.2 is illegally holding additional extended place and her occupation in respect to that portion of 18' x 12' is quite illegal, therefore, Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly dismissed the application without apprehending the true wording of the law, as well as authority cited, hence the order 7-5-2007 is set aside and he is directed to proceed with the matter. In terms of the above observation, this Criminal Revision Application is disposed of.