ABDUL KHALIQ vs NASIR JAWAID and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred while granting him six months to vacate the premises. The core legal question concerns the limitation period for filing an appeal and the protection of rights of a person claiming to be a tenant who was not originally impleaded in ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having been ordered to vacate without being treated as a tenant or being allowed to raise objections under relevant statutory provisions, has arguable points on limitation based on precedent. The Court granted leave to appeal, directed security to be furnished, and ordered status quo regarding possession.
- Whether an appeal dismissed as time-barred by the High Court warrants interference when precedent allows for condonation or computation of limitation?
- Can a person claiming to be a tenant be ordered to vacate premises without being impleaded or proceeded against as a tenant before the Rent Controller?
- Whether a person affected by an ejectment order is entitled to raise objections under Section 22 of the Sind Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Section 22, Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, Karachi dated 17-1-1988 whereby while dismissing his appeal as incompetent being time- barred, the learned Judge allowed him six months for vacating the premises.
2. We had issued notice to the respondents as there was a decision of this Court in Fazal Karim v.
3. Ghulam Jilani and others (1975 SCM R 452) which could be availed of by the petitioner in the matter of limitation. On merits, we feel that though the petitioner claimed to be tenant, he was not impleaded as a tenant nor proceeded against before the Rent Controller and the ejectment order was passed against someone else. He had come up in appeal against that order but without treating him to be a tenant he has been asked to vacate the premises precluding him thereby from raising any objection such as he could raise under section 22 of the Sind Rent Restriction Ordinance.
4. ' Special efforts were made to get the respondents served. The petitioner had personally taken the responsibility of getting them served. There are notices on record showing that service has taken place but we are not at the moment in a position to take it for certain and therefore of converting the petition into appeal and disposing it of.
5. ' Therefore, we grant leave to appeal. Security shall be Rs,2,500. Status quo with regard to possession subject to notice.