1985 PLP 1060 (SCMR)
Mst. SHARIFAN BEGUM and others Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAMID‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1060 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SHARIFAN BEGUM and others Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAMID‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1060 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1060 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1060 (SCMR) (Mst. SHARIFAN BEGUM and others Petitioners Versus ABDUL HAMID‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Ahmad Dar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st April, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment and Order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2‑1‑1980, in S.A.O. No.557/79). ‑‑Ejectment‑‑Personal requirement‑‑Overall accommodation available to landlord being not enough for her residence, need, held, genuine and bona fide‑‑Concurrent findings of all Courts below supported by evidence on record‑‑No omission or misreading of evidence‑‑No violation of any principle of law‑‑Order of ejectment maintained‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑‑This is a petition by the tenant/petitioner against an order of the High Court dated 2‑1‑1980, whereby his eviction from the back portion of the house in dispute was maintained, as upheld by the learned Additional District Judge on 28‑6‑1979 and as initially directed by the learned Rent Controller on 15‑4‑1979, on the ground that the house was needed by the landlord for his personal need and requirement.
2. Apparently the case is concluded by a finding of fact but the learned counsel tried to argue that Mst. Munawar Sultana wife of the landlord lived in Karachi whereas the landlord himself was outside the country and in the circumstances there was no need to get the house vacated from the tenant. The contention has no merit. Mst. Munawar Sultana the wife of the landlord personally appeared in the witness‑box as (A.W. 4) and deposed that she had no house to live in Lahore because after the marriage of the sister of her husband who was living in a portion of the property in dispute she had to go to her own parents in Karachi for shelter for sometime and that Karachi was not her permanent place of residence and nor of her husband. She further deposed that she had two sons and the accommodation in which she was to put up with the sister of her husband, for the present was not enough. Leaving aside the temporary residence of the sister of her husband even otherwise, we feel that the overall accommodation available to Mst. Munawar Sultana was not really enough for her own residence, and that the eviction of the petitioner in the circumstances was quite justified. Another fact to be noted is that Mst. Munawar Sultana, in the circumstances above explained, had to get one room on rent in the same locality in May, 1977, which also shows that the need of the landlord is quite genuine and bona fide. The concurrent findings recorded by the all Courts below are well supported by the evidence on the record and there neither being any omission nor misreading of evidence the case is not fit for grant of leave to appeal when it does not involve violation of any principle of law applicable to cases of this type. 3 The result it that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. M.I. Leave refused.