ORDER SHEET

HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARCHI

C.P.No.S-441 of 2008

C.P.No.S-451 of 2008

C.P.No.S-452 of 2008

----------------------------------------------------

Order with signature of Judge

----------------------------------------------------

For Katcha Peshi.

-----------------

13.05.2009.

-----------

Mr. Fahim Riazuddin Siddqui, Advocate for the petitioner in C.P.No.S-441/2008.

Mr. Iktikhar Javed Qazi, Advocate for the petitioners in C.Ps. No.S-451 and 452 of 2008.

Mr. Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Advocate for the respondent.

                  **********

      These are petitions against the concurrent findings on the issues of default and personal need. Default has been alleged for three months from March to June 2004 while personal need has also been claimed. The stand taken by the petitioners is that by the time they received notice under Section 18, they had already deposited rent in MRC in the name of the previous landlord from January to June 2004 and thereafter from July 2004 they continued to deposit rent in the name of new landlord. As far as personal need is concerned, they submit that stereotype applications have been filed by the landlord against all the three tenants.

      Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed by pointing out that it was a duty cast upon the tenants to pay the rent from the date of notice as the date of purchase is 12.01.2004 and deposit of rent in the name of previous landlord is not proper payment. He submits that personal need has been spelled out through his affidavit and has been accepted by the two courts below while Section 15-A of the SRPO is there to check mala fide on the part of the applicant.

      After hearing the learned counsel, apparently no case in the petitions is made out. Both the learned counsel have concurred for some time. Petitioners’ counsel have demanded two years’ time while Mr. Muhammad Ali Mazhar, counsel for the respondent has agreed for six months.

Keeping in view that shops are involved therefore an year time is granted to enable the petitioners to shift their business. All the three petitions are disposed of with the direction that the petitioners to vacate the shops in question by or before 12.05.2010 while they will continue to pay the rent through MRC. In case of non-vacation within the given time, writ of possession with police assistance and break opening the lock to the bailiff will be issued. Non-payment of rent will not allow petitioners the concession to retain the shops and landlord can resort to the Court for appropriate order. On the joint request, it is also ordered that the petitioners may withdraw the rent deposited in MRC filed against the previous landlord with a notice to that landlord. Rent from 12^th January to June 2004 will be paid to the respondent as according to his counsel, sale deed in favour of the respondent was executed on 12.01.2004.

      All the three petitions stands disposed of in

above terms.

                                                JUDGE