---S.13---See Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979),S.3(1).

Ref. 1998 SCMR 2092(a)&(d).

---Ss.13 & 15---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),Art. 115---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),Art. 185(3)---Default---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant--Parties were inter-related inasmuch as the petitioner (tenant) was son-in-law of the respondent (landlord )---Respondent instituted ejectment case against the pe6titioner on ground of default ---Petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant and stated that it was he who got the property transferred in the name of respondent and was allowed to occupy the same and he had spent huge amount of money toward his construction---Rent Controller and the High Court found that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties did exist and the passed for ejectment for the petitioner (tenant)---record did not show agreement of tenancy and admittedly respondent did not pass on any rent receipts to the petitioner ---Amount claim by the petitioner to have been spent by way of constructing the property was not supported by any voucher---Held, respondent was admitted to be the owner of the property and it was for the petitioner, who cancelled having been inducted in the premises by the respondent , to establish the nature of his position ---Where the parties were so closely related , it was not inconceivable that rents were being paid without proper documentation ---Absence of tenancy agreement was stated to be due to the fact that the tenancy was created before the promulgation of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance ,1979---Case being a classic one where in terms of article of 115 , Qanun-e-Shahadat ,1984 a person, put into possession as tenant or as licensee by another, was stopped from questioning the title at the inception of the one who inducted him, or except in clearly categorised cases the entitlement of such a one to repossess the same---When the respondent had obvious title to the property and he had led evidence to show that the petitioner was his tenant, the case was correctly decided on preponderance of evidence by the Courts below---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Ref.1998 SCMR 2374.

---S.13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)---Landlord and tenant, relationship of ---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider contention that if tenant disputed relationship and claimed title to the property then it was for him to have question settled by Civil Court.

Ref. 1999 SCMR 348(b).

---S.13---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Landlord and tenant, relationship of ---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention that plea of tenant that disputed premises were purchased by him was not reflected in the pleadings and therefore, no issue was framed with regard to same in the proceedings, which could be co9ncluded as permitted in the relevant law.

Ref. 1999SCMR 348(c).

---S.13---Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.30---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),Art. 185(3)---Transferees of big mansion to whom P.T.O. had been issued---Relationship of landlord and tenant between such transferees and the occupants of such property---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider contention that directions given by High Court to the transferees of big mansion to obtain P.T.D. and to have property demarcated, were outside the scope of proceedings as defined in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

Ref. 1999 SCMR 348(e).

---S.13---Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation ) Act (XXVIII

Ref. 1999 SCMR 348(d).

---S.13---Displaced Persons (Compensation and ?Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958),S.30---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.53-A---Transferees of big mansion which had not yet been partitioned---Ejectment of tenants sought by co-transferees on ground of default by tenants---Three transferees or their successors out of 59 transferees had contested the joint owner's right to eject the tenants---Validity---Held, though joint transferees/joint owners of such big mansion could file ejectment proceedings under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on the ground of default by tenant, yet they could not apply for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement till that time the property was partitioned and they got particular portions of property as their share---Ejectment order on ground of default would be for the benefit of the joint transferees/joint owners and not for the benefit of the joint owners filing ejectment proceedings, particularly keeping in view that 3 original transferees or their successors out of 59 transferees had contested the joint owner's right to eject the tenants.

Ref. 1999 SCMR 348(1).

---S.13---Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.30---Transferees of big mansion---Relationship of landlord and tenant between such transferees and the occupants---Provisional Transfer Order was issued to transferee as far back as 1959--- Full price had been paid but certain amounts as rent and other charges were yet to be paid before a P.T.D. could be obtained by the transferees--- Such situation of the matter would not detract the right of the transferees to let out big mansion or to file ejectment case in respect of the same or a portion thereof---By virtue of para. III of the Provincial Transfer Order, the transferees of big mansion were entitled to let out such transferred property--- Relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence between the transferees and the occupants by virtue of S30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) act, 1958.

1998 S C M R 348.

---S.13--- West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13---Eviction of tenant ---Co-owner can file ejectment proceedings against a tenant without impleading his other co-owners.

1998 S C M R 348.

---Ss. 13 & 15---Ejectment of tenant---Omission in the prayer clause o f a portion of the building would not disentitle the landlord from seeking ejectment from the entire leased out premises including the said omitted portion.

1996 S C M R 1178(g).

---S. 13---Transfer of property Act (IV of 1882), S. 105---Tenant paying to landlord specified amount in addition to rent---Jurisdiction of Rent Controller whether taken away, where relationship of landlord and tenant was no denied---Mere fact that tenant had paid specified amount in addition to rent, would not take away jurisdiction of Rent Controller in a case in which relationship of landlord and tenant was not denied---Provision of S . 105, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, would not alter the jurisdiction of Rent Controller for said section had nothing to do with the question, whether ejectment application was filed before Rent Controller or in Civil Court---Tenant having been paying rent to landlord and admitting such fact in their written statement, relationship of landlord and tenant between parties stood established and so also jurisdiction of Rent Controller to hear ejectment application.

Ref. 1993 S C M R 200(b).