1986 PLP 1823 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFOOR Petitioner Versus Mst. MASHA ALLAH JAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1823 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR Petitioner Versus Mst. MASHA ALLAH JAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1823 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1823 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1823 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFOOR Petitioner Versus Mst. MASHA ALLAH JAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 1986.
- Mirza Abdul Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 15-10-1985 passed in First Rent Appeal No. 94 of 1983). --Art. 185(3)--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21- Ejectment--Default in payment of rent--Issue concluded by concurrent findings of fact--Such concurrent findings of fact, held, did not give rise to any question of law--Petition being devoid or-merit, dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The respondent /landlady applied for the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed shop premises on the ground of default in payment of rent for 11 months. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller on an affirmative finding of default. The petitioner s First Rent Appeal challenging the said order of ejectment was dismissed by the learned High Court as per impugned judgment. 2 It was contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner had been tendering rent from time to time which proved his bona fides and in any case the default was not such as could not have been condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned High Court on examining the evidence in the case found that even if certain payments mere taken into consideration there was a clear default for three months in respect of December, 1977, January, 1978 and May, 1978. 3. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel and examination of the two orders passed in the case, we find that the issue involved in the case stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact. Such findings of fact do not give rise to any question of law. The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly. M.I. Petition dismissed.