1987 PLP 1613 (SCMR)
Mrs. SHAMIM FIRDOUS NIAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus IFTIKHAR AHMED SYED and 5 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1613 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat, and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Mrs. SHAMIM FIRDOUS NIAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus IFTIKHAR AHMED SYED and 5 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1613 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1613 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir 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: 1987 PLP 1613 (SCMR) (Mrs. SHAMIM FIRDOUS NIAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus IFTIKHAR AHMED SYED and 5 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Aziz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate‑on‑record for Petitioner.
- A. F. M. Mukarrim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A.I, Qarni, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi dated 11‑5‑1986 passed in First Rent Appeal No.731 of 1983). ‑‑‑S. 21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Concurrent finding of fact‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Ejectment‑‑Finding on question of personal bona fide requirement of respondent affirmed by High Court on basis of evidence on record‑‑Decision resting on finding of fact‑‑No question of law arising‑‑Supreme Court declined to further re‑appraise evidence and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The deceased Chanda Begum, applied for the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed residential premises on the grounds of default, personal bona fide need and nuisance. It was deposed by the husband of the applicant /respondent in the trial Court that the premises was required by the respondent /landlady for the occupation of her family which consisted of her husband, three sons and three daughters, all of whom were adults. It was further stated that two of the sons had completed their education and their marriages had to be arranged. Chanda Begum having died during the proceedings and her legal heirs were brought on the record and the learned Rent Controller allowed the application of eviction by order dated 1‑9‑1983 only on the ground of personal requirement. Petitioner's First Rent Appeal from the order of the Rent Controller having failed, leave to appeal is now sought from the judgment of the learned High Court. 2. We heard the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment. The finding on the question of personal bona fide requirement of the respondents has been affirmed by the learned Judge in the High Court on the basis of evidence on the record. The decision in the case rests on findings of fact and there is no room for further re‑appraisal of evidence at this stage. No question of law is raised in the petition, which merits no consideration. The same is dismissed accordingly. M.I. /S‑46/S Petition dismissed.