1983 PLP 37 (SCMR)
MAHBOOB ELAHI-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 37 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAHBOOB ELAHI-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN-Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 37 (SCMR)?
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 1983 PLP 37 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 37 (SCMR) (MAHBOOB ELAHI-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Hamiduddin, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Alt, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 16th December, 1981.
- Ch. Hamiduddin, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Alt, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 8th April, 1981, passed in S.A.O. No. 813 of 1979).
S. 15-Second appeal-Concurrent findings-High Court ordinarily not to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below-Sufficient material existing to show misreading of evidence by Courts below-High Court, held, justified in interfering with such findings.-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench), dated 8‑4‑1981, accepting the respondent's S.A.O. (No. 813/79), in a rent case, on the ground that from the evidence on the record the bona fide need of the respondent‑landlord for requirement of the shop in question for personal use stood proved.
2. The facts leading to the petition are briefly that Muhammad Zaman respondent‑landlord filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner (tenant) from Shop No. U/633 Mochi Bazar, Rawalpindi, on the ground of default in payment of rent and for boner fide requirement of the shop for his personal use. After recording the evidence the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application. The appeal filed by the respondent‑landlord was also dismissed by the learned first appellate Court. He then filed a Second Appeal before the High Court which was accepted as mentioned above. Hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. His main contention before us was that the learned Judge in Chamber could not set aside the concurrent findings of fact relating to a bona fide need of the landlord's personal requirement in Second Appeal.
4. We have gone through the relevant portions of the evidence and the impugned judgment of the High Court. It is true that ordinarily the High Court is not competent to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact by the learned Courts below, but in the present case there is sufficient material to show that the Courts below had misread the evidence on record and the first appellate Court had based its conclusions on extraneous consideration which are not borne out or established by evidence on the record. The petition has no force and is consequently dismissed. Leave refused.