2003 PLP 1671 (SCMR)
SARWAR HASAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL AKHTAR — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1671 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ail Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | SARWAR HASAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL AKHTAR — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1671 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1671 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Syed Deedar Hussain Shah and Hamid Ail Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1671 (SCMR) (SARWAR HASAN KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL AKHTAR — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Suleman Habiullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 21st June, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 23-1-2001, of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, passed in F.R.A. No.499 of 1995).
S. 15
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider, whether the High Court appreciated the law as well as evidence on record, whether tenant was defaulter in payment of rent of demised premises and whether the order of High Court was maintainable.
Judgment & Decree
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.
Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 23-1-2001, passed in F.R.A. No.499 of 1995.
2. The facts, which have already been discussed in the impugned judgment of the High Court, need not be repeated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law, as the learned Single Judge in Chambers did not appreciate the facts and law while allowing, the appeal of the respondent; and that there is misreading and non-reading of the evidence recorded by the Rent Controller.
4. After hearing and perusing the record, we are convinced that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of leave. Leave is, therefore granted to consider:-- (1) Whether the learned Single Judge appreciated the law as well as the evidence on record? (2) Whether the respondent is defaulter in payment of rent of the demised premises from 22-7-1993 to 21-8-1993? and (3) Whether the order of the learned Single Judge is maintainable? M.H./S-281/S Leave granted