1989 PLP 1824 (SCMR)
ABID Petitioner Versus ABDUL KARIM Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1824 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Adbul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rehman, JJ |
| Parties | ABID Petitioner Versus ABDUL KARIM Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1824 (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 1824 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Adbul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rehman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1824 (SCMR) (ABID Petitioner Versus ABDUL KARIM Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- N. K. Jatoi, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.
- S. M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 12‑3‑1988 in F.R.A. No. 245 of 1985). ‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Rent Controller had passed order of ejectment on being satisfied from the evidence on record that landlord had successfully proved that he required the premises for the use of his son to set up a business‑‑High Court on reappraisal of evidence also took the same view‑‑Tenant raised the same submissions which were urged before the High Court and had been rejected for proper and cogent reasons‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, .J‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dismissing an appeal filed by petitioner and thereby upholding an order of the Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises. Learned Rent Controller passed that order on being satisfied from the evidence recorded in the case that the respondent had successfully proved that he required the premises for the use of his son to set up a business so that his marriage could be arranged. Learned Judge in the High Court on re‑appraisal of evidence also took the same view. According to his findings the accommodation presently available to the landlord is not sufficient to accommodate his son. Learned Judge was also not impressed with the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the landlord has another property besides the one stated by him. N. K. Jatoi, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the same submissions that were urged before the High Court in support of the appeal but we find that these have been rejected for proper and cogent reasons. There is therefore no merit in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. A.A./A‑549/S Leave refused.