1986 PLP 282 (SCMR)
Haji ALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MOHAN LAL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 282 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Haji ALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MOHAN LAL‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 282 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 282 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 282 (SCMR) (Haji ALI MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MOHAN LAL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munawwar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1982
- ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑ Facts of this case briefly stated are that by a lease‑deed, dated 1‑3‑1976 petitioner let out the demised premises to respondent for three years on monthly rent of Rs.1,375. On 21‑4‑1979 petitioner applied for respondent's eviction on the ground that he required the premises for his bona fide use. The Rent Controller upheld this plea and directed respondent's eviction by the order, dated 6‑5‑1980 but on appeal a learned Single Judge of Sind High Court took the view that since the case was to be decided under the provisions of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the ejectment application was not competent as the demised premises constitute a hotel to which the provisions of the Ordinance are not applicable. For these reasons, learned Judge in the High Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller by the judgment, dated 18‑5‑1982.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 18th May, 1982, passed in First Rent Appeal No. 460 of 1980). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21‑ West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13‑ Question of law raised, whether ejectment application filed by landlord under Rent Ordinance, 1959 for ejectment of tenant from a premises which constituted a hotel, can continue in spite of said Ordinance having been repealed by Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979‑‑Question likely to govern large number of cases for which an authoritative decision by Supreme Court was necessary‑‑Leave to appeal ranted.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑ Facts of this case briefly stated are that by a lease‑deed, dated 1‑3‑1976 petitioner let out the demised premises to respondent for three years on monthly rent of Rs.1,
375. On 21‑4‑1979 petitioner applied for respondent's eviction on the ground that he required the premises for his bona fide use. The Rent Controller upheld this plea and directed respondent's eviction by the order, dated 6‑5‑1980 but on appeal a learned Single Judge of Sind High Court took the view that since the case was to be decided under the provisions of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 the ejectment application was not competent as the demised premises constitute a hotel to which the provisions of the Ordinance are not applicable. For these reasons, learned Judge in the High Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller by the judgment, dated 18‑5‑1982. Mr. Munawwar Malik, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court submits that there is conflict of views on the question of law whether the proceedings for eviction of a tenant from hotel premises filed under Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 can continue in spite of repeal of the Ordinance by the Sind Rent Premises Ordinance, 1979. In, this connection reliance was sought to be placed on the observations of this Court in Abdul Rehman v. Haji Mir Ahmed Khan Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑66 of 1982. Since the question of law raised is likely to govern large number of cases, it is necessary that this Court should pronounce an authoritative decision. Leave is granted. Security Rs.2,
000. It is only appropriate that the appeal arising out of this petition should be heard by a larger Bench, preferably consisting of four Judges. Order accordingly. M. Y. H. Leave granted.