1989 PLP 525 (SCMR)
ZAHID MAHMOOD and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. IQBAL BEGUM — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 525 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ZAHID MAHMOOD and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. IQBAL BEGUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 525 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 525 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 525 (SCMR) (ZAHID MAHMOOD and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. IQBAL BEGUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbool Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th October, 1988.
- Maqbool Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 24-2-1984 in F.RA. 306/1984).
S.15--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Petition for leave to appeal- Tenant's eviction on ground of sub-letting--Order of eviction upheld by High Court--Order impugned--Facinal controversy with regard to transfer of possession by original tenant to sub-tenant being a question of fact, High Court after carefully considering the material brought to its notice, had rendered finding which was unexceptionable--Provision of Evidence Act, 1872 could not be made applicable in terms, to proceedings before the Rent Controller--High Court was justified in relying on the material on record as also on high probabilities--Case being concluded by findings of fact was not a fit one for grant of leave to appeal, which was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the tenants' side, against the dismissal by the High Court of Sind, of their first rent appeal from an order of eviction passed on ground of subletting. Learned counsel has raised factual controversy with regard to the issue relating to transfer of possession by the petitioner No.1 (original tenant) to petitioner No.2 (the sub‑tenant). He has taken us through the relevant material on record and has tried to show that the physical possession had not been transferred; And, that in any case, even if it be held that physical possession had been transferred to the sub‑tenant, there was no proof that the "legal" possession had been transferred for consideration like the payment of rent by the sub‑tenant to the original tenant. Essentially all these questions are of facts. The learned Judge in the High Court after carefully considering the material brought to his notice, has rendered findings, which are unexceptionable. The so‑called legal point that there was no direct evidence on question of payment of rent by the sub‑tenant or the use and possession of the shop by him in his own right, it also stands resolved by the afore‑referred findings. It is needless to add that the Evidence Act could not be made applicable in terms, to the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller. The High Court was thus fully After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal it stands concluded by findings of fact. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. AA./Z‑46/S Leave to appeal refused.