MUHAMMAD ALI MUTLAQ vs Mst. ANWAR FATIMA And 5 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sind High Court, which held that an order by a Rent Controller dismissing a landlord's application to strike out a tenant's defense under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance is not appealable. The petitioner challenged this finding, noting a conflict of judicial decisions regarding whether such an order constitutes an interim order subject to appeal under Section 21 of the same Ordinance. Recognizing that this legal question is recurring and requires an authoritative resolution to ensure consistency in rent litigation, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The Court determined that the matter necessitates a definitive ruling to settle the conflicting interpretations regarding the appealability of orders passed under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. Consequently, the Court admitted the petition for regular hearing to resolve this significant question of law.
- Is an order of a Rent Controller dismissing an application to strike out a defendant's defense under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance an appealable order?
- Does an appeal lie under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance against an order refusing to strike out a tenant's defense?
- Section 16(2), Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
- Section 21, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--There seems to be conflict of .Decisions on the question of law whether order of the Rent Controller dismissing an application of the landlord for striking out the defence of the defendant under section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance is an interim order and as such any appeal against it lies under section 21 of the Ordinance. By the judgment, dated 1-12- 1985 from which leave to appeal is sought in this petition learned Judge in the Sind High Court following earlier decision reported as 1986 CLC 43 held that the order of the nature above is not appeal able. It is, therefore, necessary that an authoritive decision of this Court on the aforesaid question of law be rendered as it is likely to govern large number of cases.
2. Leave is granted. Security Rs.1,000. Appeal arising out' of this petition will be heard on the present record but it is open to the parties to file additional documents, if any.
Cited by 1 case
- MUKHTAR BEGUM Versus DILDAR AHMED 1994 CLC 1210