-­Plaintiff who was tenant under defendant had filed suit for declaration, .permanent injunction, possession and recovery of damages contending that he was forcibly dispossessed by defendant (landlord) from shop in dispute

1994 M L D 527
[Karachi]
Before Wajihuddin Ahmed; J
GHULAM RASOOL---Applicant
versus
MUHAMMAD WARIS BISMIL---Respondent
Revision Application No.251 of 1987, heard on 2nd April, 1990.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--­--
----Ss. 9, 42 & 54---Suit for declaration; permanent injunction, possession and recovery of damages---Dismissal of suit---Appeal against ---Competency--­Plaintiff who was tenant under defendant had filed suit for declaration, .permanent injunction, possession and recovery of damages contending that he was forcibly dispossessed by defendant (landlord) from shop in dispute and his goods and articles of trade were forcibly thrown out---Plaintiff had claimed that he was entitled to be put back into possession as also to be compensated for damage caused to his goods and articles---Trial Court, on a wrong assumption of facts and law, treated suit to be under S.9 although that provision was not quoted by plaintiff---Trial Court, thereafter, proceeded to dismiss suit on grounds which did not appear to be sound in law, but in appeal decree of dismissal at trial was reversed by Appellate Court without allowing damages---Defendant/petitioner contended that no appeal lay against a decree under S.9 as provided in the section itself---Mere assumption on part of a Court that suit had been filed under S.9 of the Specific Relief Act would not by itself make that suit to be such, but invocation of that provision had to be either expressly made by plaintiff or should be deducible on a proper construction of plaint while plaintiff had never made averment that suit fell under S.9---Plaintiff with relief ' of possession having also prayed for declaration, permanent injunction and compensation in suit under S.9 apart from seeking possession, on being dispossessed could not save in rare cases, couple any other relief---Suit which did not fall under S.9, appeal from decree of Trial Court was fully competent.
(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 8 & 9---Where a person was not owner of property and had sought to be put back into possession solely on ground of having been in possession and unlawfully dispossessed within a period of six months prior to institution of suit, remedy lay only under S.9 and S.8 could not be invoked because a suit under S.8 could be instituted only by those entitled to property---Title was not material in a suit falling under S.9 and any person who had been dispossessed, otherwise than in due course of law, could, without pleading or proving title, seek to be re-inducted into possession even though such a relief was sought against true owner of property himself.
Sobha v. Ram Phal A I R 1957 All. 394; Azam Khan v. The State of Pakistan and another P L D 1957 Kar. 892; Siddiq Ahmed v. Estate Officer and another P L D 1957 Kar. 887; Riaz and another v. Razi Muhammad P L D 1979 Kar. 227 and Supercon Ltd. v. Eastern Construction Ltd. 1987 C L C 1566 ref.
(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S. 9---Remedy ...

Expand