1989 PLP 1379 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AYUB and others Petitioners Versus Mst. NUSRAT BEGUM‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1379 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB and others Petitioners Versus Mst. NUSRAT BEGUM‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1379 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1379 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1379 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AYUB and others Petitioners Versus Mst. NUSRAT BEGUM‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Tayyab, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record and A. H. Najfi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15‑10‑1988 in FA.O. No.80 of 1985). ‑‑‑Ss.17 & 24‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence being a matter arising in first appeal, was within scope of High Court‑ Neither misreading nor ignoring of any evidence by High Court was pointed out‑ Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
(1) Whether the respondents have paid or tendered the rent to the petitioner for the disputed period? (2) Whether the petitioner needs the shop in dispute for her personal bona fide need? (3) Relief. The issue pertaining to default was not pressed. With regard to the personal bona fide need, the Rent Controller found that the landlady had failed to establish that. The result was that the ejectment application was dismissed. The landlady filed an appeal before the High Court which was accepted by means of the impugned judgment. The High Court discussed the entire evidence and observed as under:‑‑ "The evidence produced by the appellant fully establishes the plea regarding bona fide requirement of shop for personal use. The finding on Issue No.2 recorded by the Rent Controller is based on misconstruction of the evidence which cannot be maintained. The findings on Issue No.2 of the Rent Controller are hereby reversed. Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the appellant." While accepting appeal, the learned Judge of the High Court gave four months time to the tenants to vacate the property and hand over its vacant possession to the landlady. All along the learned counsel contended that the landlady had failed to prove bona fide personal need. The High Court erred in law in reversing the finding of the trial Court on this issue and misconstrued the evidence. There is no force in these contentions. As already observed, the question A of appreciation of evidence was within the scope of the High Court the matter being a first appeal. We are not prepared to re‑appraise the evidence nor have we found any misreading of evidence nor that any evidence was not considered by the High Court. No ground for leave. Dismissed. M.A.K./M‑866/S Leave dismissed.