Dr. TAHIRA HUSSAIN and others vs Shaikh WASEEM AHMED
This appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed the appellants' appeal regarding an eviction order while noting that pending applications under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 remained to be adjudicated. The appellants contended that the eviction order was void ab initio due to procedural irregularities, including the lack of mandatory notice and unauthorized actions by the Court Reader. Upon the Supreme Court granting leave to appeal, the parties reached a consensus during the proceedings. The core legal question concerned the appropriate disposal of the eviction dispute in light of the pending applications regarding fraud and procedural nullity. The Supreme Court, by consent of the parties, dismissed the appeal as not pressed and directed the Rent Controller to decide the pending applications under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Section 22, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 within two months. The Court further ordered that the appellants remain protected from eviction until the Rent Controller issues a final decision on those applications.
- Can a Rent Controller be directed to decide pending applications under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 within a specific timeframe?
- Is an eviction order void ab initio if mandatory notice under Section 24-A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was not provided?
- Can the Supreme Court dispose of an appeal by consent of the parties while directing the trial court to adjudicate pending applications?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 22, Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 24-A(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Present appeal, by leave of the Court, .Proceeds against order dated 15- 1-2001, whereby the learned High Court of Sindh, Karachi dismissed appellants' appeal (FRA No,548 of 1999) with the following observations:-- "Before parting with this order it may be mentioned that any observations made in this order will not effect the disposal of the applications under section 22 of the Ordinance and under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which are stated to be pending for adjudication,' in accordance with law as the question of fraud, manipulation in record, misrepresentation and connivance urged therein could only be decided in those proceedings."
2. This Court, on 3-12-2001, upon appellants' filing Civil Petition (CPLA No,194-K of 2001) granted leave to appeal. Leave granting order is reproduced below:-- "This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 15-1-2001, passed in FRA No,548 of 1999.
Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the learned single Judge of the High Court failed to appreciate that the eviction order dated 17-4-1999 passed by the learned Rent Controller was void ab initio, illegal without jurisdiction, corarn non judice and nullity in law, due to absence of mandatory notice to the petitioners under section 24-A(2), C.P.C.; that no case diary or order having been written on 6-12-1997 as required by law; that on several dates of hearing order sheet/case diary having been illegally written, signed and adjournments granted illegally without lawful authority by the Court Reader; that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is vitiated because it is based upon erroneous assessment offacts, misreading of vital evidence available on appellate record, which has restated in miscarriage of justice in this matter.
' On the other hand, Mr. Zafar Alam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, supported the impugned judgment. However, he submitted that this, matter may be kept pending till the applications moved by the petitioners under section 12(2) of the Ordinance and under section 12(2), C.P.C., pending before the trial Court are decided.
' We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the material available on record. It would not be proper to keep the matter pending till the above motioned applications are decided by the trial Court. We see substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, question of public importance is also involved, therefore, we grant leave to appeal to consider the above mentioned points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Meanwhile, operation of the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 15-1-2001, is suspended. However, the petitioners shall deposit the rent regularly."
3. Learned counsel for the appellants, after arguing the matter at considerable length, submitted that lie would not press this appeal, provided the learned Rent Controller be directed to decide appellants' pending applications, one filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. And other under section 22 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, within two months. Learned counsel for the respondent, when confronted, readily accepted the offer and raised no objection to this course of action.
4. By consent of the learned counsel of the parties, the present appeal is decided in the following terms:--
(i) Appeal in hand stands dismissed having not been pressed.
(ii) The learned Rent Controller is directed to decide appellants' pending application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. And 22 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 within a period of two months, commencing from 8-11-2008, after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law, even if he has to undertake day-to-day proceedings.
(iii) Learned counsel for the parties is directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 8-11- 2008, who shall proceed with the matter immediately, notwithstanding any date 'previously fixed in those applications, so as to conclude the matter within the timeframe given by this Court.
(iv) Till the decision of the said applications by the learned Rent Controller, the appellants shall not be evicted from the premises in question.
(v) The parties shall bear their own costs.
Disposed of,