1993 PLP 691 (SCMR)
Mrs. Dr. ZARINA DOOSANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MEHDI‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 691 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Ajmal Mian, J |
| Parties | Mrs. Dr. ZARINA DOOSANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MEHDI‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 691 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 691 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ and Ajmal Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 691 (SCMR) (Mrs. Dr. ZARINA DOOSANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL MEHDI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rasheed A. Razvi, Advocate Supreme Court and A. A. Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th September, 1990.
- Suleman Kassim, .Advocate Supreme Court and S. M. Abbas,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order and judgment of a learned Judge of Sindh High Court dated 14‑2‑1990 in F.R.A: No. 170 of 1989). (a) Sindh Rented. Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.15(2)(vi)‑‑‑Ejectment on ground of reconstruction‑‑‑Period of sanction of Authority for reconstruction of building had expired during pendency of the case‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Held, whether sanction for reconstruction which was obtained by the landlord, enured for his benefit, notwithstanding the fact that the original period for which it was granted had expired till the conclusion of the proceedings before the highest Court, would depend upon circumstances of each case. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.15(2)(vi)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Ejectment sought on the ground of reconstruction of building‑‑‑Building in question was in a dilapidated condition and all other tenants had vacated the building except the petitioner who had the right to re‑occupy premises after reconstruction in accordance with the conditions provided in law‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused to the petitioner (tenant) against the order of his ejectment in circumstances. Suleman Kassim, .Advocate Supreme Court and S. M. Abbas,
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J
Leave to appeal has been sought by the tenant in an urban rent restriction matter against the dismissal by the High Court of her First Rent Appeal whereby the order of her eviction on account of re‑construction of the property in question, passed by the learned Rent Controller was affirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly pointed out that the only question now left for examination is whether the sanction for re‑construction which was admittedly obtained by the respondent landlord, enures for the benefit of the landlord notwithstanding the fact that the original period for which it was granted, had expired. Learned counsel tried to distinguish the case relied upon in the impugned judgment and stated that while. in the said case the period of sanction had expired during the pendency of the case, in this matter accordingly to him, it has expired prior to the filing of the application. After some discussions regarding the difficulty in obtaining/receiving sanction which ordinarily is granted for one year at one time while the eviction application ordinarily takes much longer time to be decided, it was agreed that it all depends upon circumstances of each case as to whether the sanction would or would not enure in favour of the landlord till the conclusion of the proceedings before the highest Court. Although the learned counsel candidly stated that there are many cases supporting the landlord in this behalf but without citing them he tried to distinguish them. Be that as it may, it is not denied that the force of authority on this and related question is against the petitioner. Apart from the above consideration there is another important feature of the case. Learned counsel admitted that the building is in a dilapidated condition. He also admitted on the pointing out of the learned counsel for the respondent/caveator that all other tenants have vacated the building, presumably because of its condition and further that it is, going to be re constructed by the respondent landlord. Despite all this it does not appeal to reason that resistance by the petitioner to vacate the premises (so as to 13 facilitate the re‑construction) is based on some bona fide reasons, particularly when it is not denied that after re‑construction petitioner would have a right to reoccupy in accordance with the conditions provided in the law. For all these reasons we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same is accordingly refused. M.BA./Z‑144/S Petition dismissed.