ALIMA AHMAD Versus AMIR ALI
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a grant of Special Leave to Appeal to resolve a conflict of judicial view between two previous Benches of the Court regarding whether all terms of a tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant continue to remain in force despite the termination of that agreement by efflux of time. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court noted that the earlier conflicting decision rendered in Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdullah was delivered by a Bench consisting of four Judges. Consequently, the Court held that an authoritative pronouncement on this core legal question requires consideration by a larger Bench. The hearing of the case was accordingly adjourned, and the file was directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders to constitute a larger Bench.
- Do all terms of a tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant continue to remain in force in spite of termination of that agreement by efflux of time?
- Is an authoritative pronouncement required from a larger Bench when a conflict of view exists between previous Benches of the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH, J. ‑Special Leave to Appeal was granted in this case in order to resolve the conflict of view between the Benches of this Court in "Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdullah (P L D 1980 S C 298) and "Alif Din v. Khadim) Hussain (1980 S C M R 767) on the question whether all the terms of tenancy agreement bet ween a landlord and tenant continue to remain in force in spite of termina tion of that agreement by efflux of time.
2. Learned counsel for the parties rightly point out that since the decision of this Court in "Muhammad Yusuf v. Abduliah" was given by the Bench consisting of four Judges, it is only appropriate that the authoritative pro nouncement should be rendered by a larger Bench.
3. The hearing of this case is, therefore, adjourned so that it may be heard by a larger Bench.
4. The file of the case shall be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for such orders as he may deem fit and proper.
5. Order accordingly.