1986 PLP 1678 (SCMR)
RAZAUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1678 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | RAZAUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1678 (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 1678 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and S.A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1678 (SCMR) (RAZAUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Suleman Kassim, Advocate Supreme Court and A.Aziz Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1986.
- Suleman Kassim, Advocate Supreme Court and A.Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 2-2-1986 in F.R.A. No. 516 of 1985).
Art. 185(3)--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss.15, 16 & 21--Ejectment--Fact that tenant had been paying rent which landlord accepted up to a certain period where after he refused to accept same, appearing correct--Tenant's plea, that landlord had been accepting rent through money order in spite of filing of ejectment application and that tenant was totally unaware of tentative rent order passed by Rent Controller, deserving consideration--Leave to appeal granted.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 2‑2‑1986 dismissing petitioner's appeal and in result upholding the order of Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he had failed to deposit rent in Court inn compliance, with the earlier order passed by him, dated 9‑12‑1984. The plea raised by the petitioner in defence was that he was regularly sending rent to respondent‑landlord through money order from June, 1977 and the respondent accepted the same up to November, 1984 but refused to do so when he sent rent by money‑order for the month of December, 1984 and thereafter he deposited rent in Court and he was, therefore, not guilty of non‑payment of rent. As regards the order of the Rent Controller petitioner explained that it was not communicated to him by his counsel at all. It seems correct that petitioner was paying rent to respondent landlord through money order ever since June, 1977 and these payments were accepted by the respondent up to November, 1984 where after he refused to accept the same. Petitioner's plea that respondent was accepting rent through money order in spite of the filing of the ejectment application and that he was totally unaware of the order of the Rent Controller, dated 9‑12‑1984 deserves consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Security Rs.500. Appeal will be heard on the present record but it will be 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 the Court regularly. M. Y. H. Leave granted.