1985 PLP 2033 (SCMR)
Mirza MUSTAFA BEG‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KHATOON HADI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 2033 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Mirza MUSTAFA BEG‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KHATOON HADI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 2033 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 2033 (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: 1985 PLP 2033 (SCMR) (Mirza MUSTAFA BEG‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. KHATOON HADI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muzaffar Ali Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1982.
- Facts of the case briefly stated are that respondent‑landlord filed an application for petitioner's eviction from Shop No. 6, Hadi Market, Nazimabad, Karachi on the ground that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the building and cause damage to it, in that, he had demolished the common intervening wall between Shops Nos. 6 and 100 both rented to him.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 2‑9‑1982 passed in First Rent Appeal No. 882 of 1982). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15(2) (iv)‑‑Ejectment on ground of tenant's impairing value and utility of premises by demolition of common wall and converting two shops rented to him into a larger one‑‑Leave granted to consider question whether there was any legal basis on record for conclusion being drawn that tenant had materially impaired utility or value of building so as to entail his eviction from shop.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 28th November, 1982. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J ‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 2‑9‑1982 dismissing petitioner's appeal and thereby upholding an order of his eviction from the demised premises passed by the Rent Controller on 18‑7.1982, Facts of the case briefly stated are that respondent‑landlord filed an application for petitioner's eviction from Shop No. 6, Hadi Market, Nazimabad, Karachi on the ground that he had materially impaired the value and utility of the building and cause damage to it, in that, he had demolished the common intervening wall between Shops Nos. 6 and 100 both rented to him. Petitioner, inter alia, pleaded that at the time the two shops were leased by respondent, he had agreed that the common wall between the shops may be removed and both the shops may be converted into one shop. The Rent Controller after recording evidence produced by the parties rejected petitioner's plea and held that he had unauthorisedly removed the wall between the two shops and thereby materially impaired the value and utility of the building, and on this view of the case, he directed petitioner's eviction from Shop No.
6. Petitioner's appeal against the order of the Rent Controller was dismissed by Sind High Court, and he now seeks leave to appeal. Mr. Muzaffar Ali Khan, learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner after referring to the record submitted that it is an admitted position that the common wall between the two shops was demolished, but there is no evidence whatsoever to the effect that by the demolition of the common wall and converting the two shops into a larger one, the value or the utility of the building was thereby impaired. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent used to issue a joint receipt of rent for the two shops treating it as one larger shop. The question that deserve consideration is whether there was any legal basis on the record for the conclusion being drawn that petitioner had materially impaired the utility or the value of the building so as to entail his eviction from the shop. Leave is granted. Security Rs.2,
000. Appeal to be made ready for hearing on the present record, It is, however, open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. Petitioner shall not be evicted from the demised premises till the appeal is decided, provided he continues to deposit rent in Court regularly. M.I. Leave granted.