P L D 1979 Supreme Court 819 (PLP)
NATIONAL STEEL LTD.‑ — Petitioner Versus Mks. F. AFSAR — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1979 Supreme Court 819 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court‑Concurrent finding of fact‑Plea of bona fide requirement of demised premises for owner's own use‑Relates to merits of evidence‑Concurrent findings on point by Courts below‑No justification, held, to interfere in absence of any substantial defect in appraisal of evidence. Evidence. |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | NATIONAL STEEL LTD.‑ — Petitioner Versus Mks. F. AFSAR — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1979 Supreme Court 819 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1979 Supreme Court 819 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court‑Concurrent finding of fact‑Plea of bona fide requirement of demised premises for owner's own use‑Relates to merits of evidence‑Concurrent findings on point by Courts below‑No justification, held, to interfere in absence of any substantial defect in appraisal of evidence. Evidence. bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1979 Supreme Court 819 (PLP) (NATIONAL STEEL LTD.‑ — Petitioner Versus Mks. F. AFSAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate and Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Hassan Inamullah, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 26th October 1978.
Headnotes / Summary
On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, dated 12th August 1978 in Second Appeal No. 60 of 1975). (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ S. 13(3), proviso‑Plea that term of lease having not expired petitioner's ejectment not competent before expiry of agreed period neither taken in written statement nor urged before trial Court or first appellate Court but noticed by High Court and repelled on short ground of ejectment orders having been passed after expiry of lease period no exception could be taken to maintainability of petition --Plea if taken before Rent Controller respondent would have had opportunity of filing application on expiry of stipulated period‑Eight years having elapsed, no propriety, held, in entertaining such objection at such belated period when likely to lead to injustice to respondents. Abdullah Bhai v. Ahmed Din P L D 1964 S C 106 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ ‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court‑Concurrent finding of fact‑Plea of bona fide requirement of demised premises for owner's own use‑Relates to merits of evidence‑Concurrent findings on point by Courts below‑No justification, held, to interfere in absence of any substantial defect in appraisal of evidence. [Evidence].
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.‑The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind dated 12th of August 1978, by which Second Appeal No. 60 of 1975 was dismissed. The respondent let out her residential house bearing No. 43/15‑G, Block 6, PECHS, Karachi, to the petitioner on a monthly rental of Rs. 1.200 pursuant to an agreement of lease dated 15th of June 1969, for a period of two years. There was also a provision in it for seeking renewal of the lease for a further term. The respondent, however, on the plea of default in the payment of rent and bona fide personal use of the house for herself and her family sued for ejecting the petitioner on 13th August 1970, before the expiry of the agreed period. The Rent Controller held the default to have been proved but rejected the plea as to the bona fide requirement of the house for her own use and directed the ejectment of the petitioner by order dated 23rd of February 1974. Both the parties appealed against the order. The first appellate Court reversed the conclusions of the trial Court inasmuch as it held that although default in the payment of rent was not established yet the respondent was entitled to seek the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the demised premises was required bona fide for her personal use. Accordingly, by order dated 14th of January 1975, it maintained the order of eviction. The petitioner went in second appeal to the High Court but did not succeed as it was dismissed as aforementioned. In seeking leave to appeal reliance was placed on the proviso to sub section (3) of section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance to contend that the application seeking its ejectment was in competent as it was filed before the expiry of the agreed period. But this plea was neither taken in the written statement nor urged before the trial Court nor the first appellate Court. It was for the first time noticed in the High Court which was repelled on the short ground that the orders of ejectment were passed after the expiry of the lease period and hence no exception could be taken to the maintainability of the petition; and support was taken for this view from Abdullah Bhai v. Ahmad Din (P L D 1964 S C 106) . It was further held that this point was not canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner. It seems that the High Court itself noticed it and disposed it of. The learned counsel, however, urged that it was taken in the grounds of appeal and, therefore, it must have been urged but it does not appear to be so from the judgment of the High Court. There is no substance in this contention for if it had been raised before the Rent Controller the respondent would still have had an opportunity of filing the application on the expiry of the period; and since eight years have now elapsed, we do not sea any propriety in entertaining this objection at this belated stage which would lead to injustice to the respondent particularly when she could have otherwise rectified the defect. It was next contended that the respondent has not been able to establish her plea of bona fide requirement of the demised premises for her own use. This contention relates to the merits of the evidence which has been assessed by the Courts below and in view of the concurrent finding on it we find n justification to interfere with it in the absence of any substantial defect in the appraisal of evidence. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition and while dismissing it we would grant 4 months time to the petitioner to vacate the demised premises subject to the payment of rent. S. A. H. Petition dismissed.