2002 PLP 1266 (MLD)
Syed AMIR SAEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSHTAQ AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1266 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ashraf Leghari and |
| Parties | Syed AMIR SAEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSHTAQ AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1266 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1266 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Ashraf Leghari and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1266 (MLD) (Syed AMIR SAEED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSHTAQ AHMED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Arif Ali Shah for petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ -‑‑S.15(2)(vii)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑Bona fide personal need of landlord ‑‑‑Ejectment application by landlord against tenant on ground of his personal bona fide use was dismissed by Rent Controller and appeal filed against said judgment was also dismissed by Appellate Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Evidence produced on record was well‑discussed by Rent Controller as well as Appellate Court and their judgments were neither illegal nor perverse and no jurisdictional defect had been pointed out by petitioner in their judgments‑‑‑Order passed by Appellate Court was based on sound reasoning and was a speaking order‑‑‑Judgment of Rent Controller affirmed by Appellate Court could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Messrs F.K. Irani & Co. v. Begum Feroze 1996 SCMR 1178; Jahangir Rustom. Karalia v. State Bank of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1296; Aftab Ahmed Saeed v. Qamaruddin 1992 MLD 1601; Messrs Saleem Brothers v. Ferozuddin Ahmed 1992 ALD 168; Azizuddin v. Muhammad Ishaque 1992 ALD 181; Mrs. Chung Ying Hsiung v. Mst. Seema Saeed 1993 CLC 505; Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali 1997 SCMR 1062; Qaumi Foundation v. Asad Anees Ansari 1997 CLC 33; Mst. Zubeda v. Muhammad Nadir 1999 MLD 3011; Messers Oosman Brothers v. Muhammad Aslam and 3 others 1999 CLC 2012; S. Muhammad Saddiq & Co. v. Dawate Hadiya Akbar Ali Hassan Ali Trust Rawalpindi wala Building 1999 CLC 1102 and Muhammad Aziz v. Mst. Azmat Begum PLD 2000 Kar. 41 ref.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner moved an application for ejectment of the respondent on the ground of his personal bona fide use. The Rent application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. The petitioner being aggrieved by that order filed an appeal before the District Judge, Karachi Central which was also dismissed on 13‑9‑2001. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two Courts below have not appreciated the evidence adduced by the landlord/petitioner. The fact that the landlord has got some other shops in his name is not the material fact to be considered. He states that the superior Courts have held that it is the choice of the landlord to get the premises for his own occupation, which is suitable to him. The reliance has been placed upon the case laws of; M/s. F.K. Irani & Co. v. Begum Feroze 1996 SCMR 1178, Jahangir Rustom Karalia v. State Bank of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1296, Aftab Ahmed Saeed v. Qamaruddin 1992 MLD 1601 (Karachi), M/s. Saleem Brothers v. Ferozuddin Ahmed 1992 ALD 181 (Karachi), Mrs. Chong Ying Hsiung v: Mst. Seema Saeed 1993 CLC 505 (Karachi), Juma Sher v. Sabz Ali 1997 SCMR 1062, Qaumi Foundation v. Asad Anees Ansari 1997 CLC 33 (Lahore), Mst. Zubeda v. Muhammad Nadir 1999 MLD 3011 (Karachi), Messers Dosman Brothers v. Muhammad Aslam and 3 others 1999 CLC 2012 (Karachi), S. Muhammad Saddiq & Co. v. Dawate Hadiya Akbar Ali Hassan Ali Trust Rawalpindiwala Building 1999 CLC 1102 (Karachi) and Muhammad Aziz v. Mst. Azmat Begum PLD 2000 Karachi
41. A perusal of the record shows that the evidence is well discussed by the two Courts below. The judgments are neither illegal nor perverse. No jurisdictional defect has been p6inted out by the learned counsel. Admittedly four shops of appellants were lying vacant. He has not stated in his evidence that the shops at present in his occupation along-with the aforesaid four shops were not sufficient to meet his requirement. The said shops are in same building. He did not explain as to why he specially wanted to occupy the shops involved in present litigation. The order passed by the Appellate Court is based on sound reasoning and is well‑speaking. The case‑law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The impugned judgments need no interference. The Constitutional petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. H.B.T./A‑322/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.