P L D 1979 Karachi 597 (PLP)
GHULAM BAHAUDDIN QURESHI — Appellant Versus Mits. HAWA BAI-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1979 Karachi 597 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Ss. 13 & 14 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11----- Res judicata-Requirement of one landlord of premises in occupation of a tenant for his personal use or use of his children-Can and will not only be different from requirement of a successor landlord, such landlord possibly having purchased premises for purposes of personal occupation-Requirement of same landlord at different times also could be different-Mere fact of requirement being of same property and for a similar purpose, held, does not make two issues substantially similar due to requirement in each case being of different persons, having different needs.-Res judicata. |
| Bench Members | Z. A. Channa, J |
| Parties | GHULAM BAHAUDDIN QURESHI — Appellant Versus Mits. HAWA BAI-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (e) West Pakistan Urban Rest Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1979 Karachi 597 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (e) West Pakistan Urban Rest Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (d) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1979 Karachi 597 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Ss. 13 & 14 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11----- Res judicata-Requirement of one landlord of premises in occupation of a tenant for his personal use or use of his children-Can and will not only be different from requirement of a successor landlord, such landlord possibly having purchased premises for purposes of personal occupation-Requirement of same landlord at different times also could be different-Mere fact of requirement being of same property and for a similar purpose, held, does not make two issues substantially similar due to requirement in each case being of different persons, having different needs.-Res judicata. bench comprising: Z. A. Channa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1979 Karachi 597 (PLP) (GHULAM BAHAUDDIN QURESHI — Appellant Versus Mits. HAWA BAI-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Tanzilur Rehman for Appellant (in Second Appeal No. 298 of 1978.
- Syed Inayat All for Appellant (in Seeond Appeal No. 309 of 1978).
- M. .A. Latif rind Riaz Ahmad for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 13 & 14 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11
Res judicata-Requirement of one landlord of premises in occupation of a tenant for his personal use or use of his children-Can and will not only be different from requirement of a successor landlord, such landlord possibly having purchased premises for purposes of personal occupation-Requirement of same landlord at different times also could be different-Mere fact of requirement being of same property and for a similar purpose, held, does not make two issues substantially similar due to requirement in each case being of different persons, having different needs.-[Res judicata]. Narayana laenger v. Subberao A I R 1958 Mys. 113 ; Kedarnath Gupta v. Nagindra Narayan A I R 1954 Pat. 97 and Allah Rakha v. Muhammad Shaft 1978SCMR437ref. S. 13 read with S. 2(1)-Relationship of landlord and tenant-tenant-Scope-Consent of landlord-Consent in writing of landlord though not obtained to occupation of premises by respondents but such persons in occupation of premises for decades--Landlord in letter addressed to respondents confirming premises having been sublet without his permission and no objection taken by landlord to such occupation by appellants-Tacit consent of landlord and waiver of condition of writing in circumstances to be assumed-Condition of writing-Can be waived by lessor-Recognition of sub-lease by conduct also obviates requirement of writing-Relationship of landlord and tenant, held, exists between parties in circumstances. Boman Abadan Irani v. Jehangir Mobed P L D 1960 Kar. 276 ref. S. 13 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Os. III, IV & VI
Orders IV & VI of Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Do not apply to proceedings under Ordinance VI of 1959--Eviction application, held, cannot be allowed to fail merely for reason of landlord having inadvertently failed to sign it or because of person signing such applica tion being not landlord's attorney within meaning of O. III of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Muhammad All v. Sirajul Haque P L D 1972 Quetta 5 ref. S. 15-Appeal-Contention that 1st Appellate Court having merely remanded case and not finally decided same no second appeal could lie-Conflicting views on point-Contention however not supported by High Court of Karachi -Rejection of such contention not affecting decision on other issues, appeal dismissed.-[Appeal (civil)]. Ibrahim v. Muhammad Han f P L D 1975 S C 457; Kandawalla & Company Limited v. Rashiduddin 1969 S C M R 721; Zardad Khan v. Haji Zarrin Shah P L D 1976 Pesh. 87; Nooruddin Khan v. Muhammad Siddlque Law Notes 1969 Lah. 1; Mst. Mah Bibi v. Mst. Hamida Begum P L D 1976 Kar. 811 and Guldad Khan v. Rahim Shah P L D 1976 Kar. 19 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Boman Abadan Irani v. Jehangir Mobed P L D 1960 Kar. 276 ref. (e) West Pakistan Urban Rest Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ S. 13 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Os. III, IV & VI
Orders IV & VI of Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑Do not apply to proceedings under Ordinance VI of 1959‑‑Eviction application, held, cannot be allowed to fail merely for reason of landlord having inadvertently failed to sign it or because of person signing such applica tion being not landlord's attorney within meaning of O. III of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Muhammad All v. Sirajul Haque P L D 1972 Quetta 5 ref. (d) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ S. 15‑Appeal‑Contention that 1st Appellate Court having merely remanded case and not finally decided same no second appeal could lie‑Conflicting views on point‑Contention however not supported by High Court of Karachi ‑Rejection of such contention not affecting decision on other issues, appeal dismissed.‑[Appeal (civil)]. Ibrahim v. Muhammad Han f P L D 1975 S C 457; Kandawalla & Company Limited v. Rashiduddin 1969 S C M R 721; Zardad Khan v. Haji Zarrin Shah P L D 1976 Pesh. 87; Nooruddin Khan v. Muhammad Siddlque Law Notes 1969 Lah. 1; Mst. Mah Bibi v. Mst. Hamida Begum P L D 1976 Kar. 811 and Guldad Khan v. Rahim Shah P L D 1976 Kar. 19 ref. Dr. Tanzilur Rehman for Appellant (in Second Appeal No. 298 of 1978. Syed Inayat All for Appellant (in Seeond Appeal No. 309 of 1978). M. .A. Latif rind Riaz Ahmad for Respondent.