Pakistan Case Law
2000 SCMR 1641

AMIN BADSHAH vs NARGIS SALEEM AHMED

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2000 SCMR 1641
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No.339-K of 1999 F.R.A. No.17 of 1998
Date2000-04-03
Judge(s)Irshad Hasan Khan, C.J., Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri and Nazim Hussain Siddigui
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi arising from a rent matter. The core legal question is whether a petition for leave to appeal is competent against a consent order passed by the High Court where the tenant was granted time to vacate the premises. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition is not competent against a consent order and is liable to be dismissed on that short ground. However, with the consent of the respondent's counsel, the Court extended the time for the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession by a specified date, failing which the petitioner would be evicted with the aid of police. The key principle laid down is that a petition against an order passed with the consent of the parties' representatives is not maintainable.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal competent against a consent order passed in a rent matter?
  • Can time to vacate rented premises be extended by the court with the consent of the respondent?
petition for leave to appealconsent orderrent matterevictionvacation of premises

ORDER

' This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi, dated 9-3-1999 passed in F.R.A. No.17 of 1998 in a rent matter.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case, in that, with consent of the landlady/respondent herein and the attorney of the petitioner, the High Court allowed one year's time to vacate the permises in dispute i.e. On or before 8th March, 2000, subject to continued deposit of rent. On this short ground, the present petition is not competent against a consent order and is liable to be dismissed.

3. Be that as it may, with the consent of the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner is allowed three months' time to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property to the respondent by 2nd July, 2000, failing which the petitioner shall be evicted without notice with aid of police.

' With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.