1979 PLP 384 (SCMR)
Sheikh KHURSHID AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES). — ‑Respondent
| Citation | 1979 PLP 384 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sheikh KHURSHID AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES). — ‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 384 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 384 (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: 1979 PLP 384 (SCMR) (Sheikh KHURSHID AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES). — ‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Inayat Ali, Advocate anti Vakli Ahmad Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 18th April 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sind dated the 18th of December, 1978 in 2nd Appeal No. 524 of 1971).
O. XLI, r. 27 (1) (b)‑Appeal‑Additional evidence, production of‑High Court obtaining affidavits to elucidate certain facts tending to favour petitioner‑High Court delivering very elaborate and well‑reasoned judgment and no material defect pointed out in such judgment‑Objection to reliance by High Court on such affidavits during hearing of second appeal, held, not tenable and case not fit for grant of leave to appeal‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 183 (3).
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑This petition is directed against an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dated the 18th of December 1978 dismissing the petitioner's second appeal in a rent case. The facts of the case briefly are that Abdul Aziz Mirza (landlord) filed ail application for the ejectment of Sh. Khurshid Ahmad (petitioner) on the ground of default in the payment of rent and also bona fide requirement of the house for his personal use and the use of his children. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application. The first appeal filed by the legal heirs of Abdul Aziz (deceased) was also dismissed. A second appeal was thereupon filed by the respondents in the High Court. The learned High Court Judge found that default in the payment of rent had not been proved. But in view of the size of the family of the landlords (respondents herein) the learned High Court Judge felt that the premises was bona fide needed by there for personal use. The learned counsel for the petitioner objected that the learned High Court Judge had relied on evidence received by him during the hearing of the second appeal, in the shape of affidavits of Khurshid Ahmad and Shaukat Mirza. We are of the view that the learned High Court Judge had obtained these affidavits to elucidate certain facts which might have, favoured the petitioner/tenant. The learned High Court has delivered a very elaborate and well‑reasoned judgment. No material defect has been pointed out in the same. We do not therefore consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is dismissed. The petitioner is however granted four months' time to vacate the premises in question, subject to regular payment of monthly rent. Petition dismissed.