CLC 1986

1986 PLP 1982 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD MOHSIN ALI‑‑Appellant Versus Syed MAHMOOD ALI‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
First Rent Appeal No. 626 of 1982, decided on 28th April, 1986.
Honorable Judges
Nasir AsIam Zahid, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1986 PLP 1982 (CLC)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Nasir AsIam Zahid, J
Parties MUHAMMAD MOHSIN ALI‑‑Appellant Versus Syed MAHMOOD ALI‑‑Respondent
Primary Law West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1982 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1982 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Nasir AsIam Zahid, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1982 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD MOHSIN ALI‑‑Appellant Versus Syed MAHMOOD ALI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑

Representation

  • Malik M. Saeed for Appellant.
  • Abdul Alim K. Talib for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 28th April, 1986.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21‑‑Shop‑ Personal requirement‑‑Except for bare statement of landlord that he required property, nothing else existing in his evidence to support his case for personal requirement‑‑Landlord neither stating in his evidence that he required property for business nor showing any other purpose for which he required shop nor mentioning particular business which he would carry on in shop in question‑‑Case for ejectment of tenant, held, was not made out on ground of personal requirement‑‑Order of Rent Controller ejecting tenant set aside. Sher Muhammad Khan v. Ali Jan Khan 1983 C L C 2222; Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Adam Khan 1983 C L C 2657; Meher Elahi v. Muhammad Qamruddin 1985 C L C 2094 and Gul Hassan v. Habibullah 1985 C L C 2281 ref.

Judgment & Decree

Learned counsel for the respondent had cited the following authorities: ‑ (i) Sher Muhammad Khan v. Ali Jan Khan 1983 C L C 2222. In this reported judgment at least the landlord had stated that he wanted the premises .for doing some business. In the instant case even this is not stated by the landlord in his evidence. Even otherwise, with respect, 1 may observe that at least in the evidence the landlord is required to state the precise purpose for which the premises are required by the landlord. (ii) Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Adam Khan 1983 C L C 2657. In this reported judgment it was held that the statement of the landlord if consistent with his averments in his ejectment application is a sufficient proof of his bona fide requirement. This authority does not help the case of the respondent. It has already been observed that in the evidence no case has been made out for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal requirement. (iii) Meher Elahi v. Muhammad Qamruddin 1985 C L C 2094. This judgment is clearly distinguishable. In that case the precise business, which the landlord wanted to carry on was not only specified in the ejectment application but the averments in the ejectment application were also fully confirmed in the evidence led by the landlord. (iv) Gul Hassan v . Habibullah 1985 C L C 2281. In this decision the personal requirement of the residential property by the landlord was not disputed and the tenant in his crossexamination had admitted the facts stated by the landlord before the Court. The decision does not help the respondent. (v) Naimuddin Siddiqui v . S.M. Ahmad Habibur Rehman 1983 C L C 1378. Neither the facts nor the principle laid down in this judgment are relevant to the point involved in the instant case.

4. As the respondent/ landlord had failed to make out a case in his evidence for personal requirement, this appeal is to be allowed '.

5. F . R . A . Note 626 of 1982 is allowed and the impugned order, dated 5‑4‑1982 passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi, allowing Rent Case No. 2422 of 1978 is set aside. s 11 There will be no order as to costs. Appeal accepted M.Y.H.