2009 PLP 2344 (YLR)
SHER BANO and another — Petitioners Versus ILYAS SHARIF and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 2344 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Bin Yameen, J |
| Parties | SHER BANO and another — Petitioners Versus ILYAS SHARIF and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 2344 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 2344 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Bin Yameen, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 2344 (YLR) (SHER BANO and another — Petitioners Versus ILYAS SHARIF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khaleeq Ahmed for Respondents.
- BIN YAMEEN, J.--- Petitioner present in person and so also Mr. Khaleeq Ahmed Advocate for the respondent No.1 is in attendance. Petitioner Sher Bano has filed instant application with request that she may be given three months more time to vacate the premises in question. She further stated that she has no alternative place to reside there.
- Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that ejectment order from the premises was passed by learned Rent Controller against the petitioner and thereafter petitioner filed appeal before the Court of District Judge, Karachi, South which was finally disposed of by 1st Additional Sessions Judge Karachi, South who upheld the decision of Rent Controller. Thereafter the petitioner filed his constitutional petition before this Court but the same was dismissed on 10-9-2007 and six months time was allowed to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. The said period of six months has already stood expired but petitioner who is an Advocate is not vacating the premises in question; that her this act is not only causing harassment to the respondent, but she is also bringing bad name to the community of Advocates. He therefore submits that instant application of the petitioner may be rejected.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 22
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner against whom ejectment order was passed, in her application had requested that she be given three months' more time to vacate the premises in question as she had no alternative place to reside there
Validity--Litigation in between the parties continued above seven years
All the Courts before whom case remained pending, had given decision against the petitioner; she also availed grace period of six months granted by the High Court
No justification existed to extend further time to the petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
BIN YAMEEN, J.
Petitioner present in person and so also Mr. Khaleeq Ahmed Advocate for the respondent No.1 is in attendance. Petitioner Sher Bano has filed instant application with request that she may be given three months more time to vacate the premises in question. She further stated that she has no alternative place to reside there. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that ejectment order from the premises was passed by learned Rent Controller against the petitioner and thereafter petitioner filed appeal before the Court of District Judge, Karachi, South which was finally disposed of by 1st Additional Sessions Judge Karachi, South who upheld the decision of Rent Controller. Thereafter the petitioner filed his constitutional petition before this Court but the same was dismissed on 10-9-2007 and six months time was allowed to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. The said period of six months has already stood expired but petitioner who is an Advocate is not vacating the premises in question; that her this act is not only causing harassment to the respondent, but she is also bringing bad name to the community of Advocates. He therefore submits that instant application of the petitioner may be rejected. Perusal of the case shows that litigation in between the parties started in the year, 2001 i.e. about seven years ago. All the Courts before whom the present case remained pending have given decisions against the petitioner. She also availed grace period of six months granted by this Court. There is no justification to extend further time, I, therefore, dismiss instant application with cost of Rs.5000 which is to be paid to respondent. H.B.T./S-84/K Petition dismissed.