1992 PLP 833 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SABIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed MUSHARRAF ALI ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 833 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SABIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed MUSHARRAF ALI ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 833 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 833 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 833 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SABIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Syed MUSHARRAF ALI ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 25‑4‑1988 passed in First Rent Appeal No. 951 of 1984). ‑‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑ Rent Controller being not satisfied either with the bona fides or with the personal need of landlord, refused to order ejectment of tenant‑‑‑High Court in appeal, reversed the finding of Rent Controller by upholding personal need of landlord and ordering ejectment of tenant‑‑‑While landlord's appeal was pending in High Court, tenant had filed application drawing attention of appellate authority to certain events and factors which materially affected landlord's entitlement to seek tenant's eviction on ground of personal need
Tenant's application was not attended to as no notice of it was sent to landlord‑‑‑Tenant's contention was that High Court while upholding landlord's personal need and ordering ejectment, had taken a too technical ‑view of the matter which was not justified in ejectment proceedings and at least a notice should have been served on landlord to meet the averment made in the application tiled before High Court‑‑‑Contentions raised by tenant too required further examination for, landlord had failed before Rent Controller and a judgment of variance was recorded for the first time by the impugned order‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner, tenant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of variance recorded by the High Court of Sindh on 25‑4‑1988 upholding the personal need of the landlord and directing the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises. The Rent Controller was not satisfied either with the bona fides or with the personal need of the landlord respondent and had, therefore, refused to order ejectment of the petitioner from the residential premises occupied by him. While the appeal of the landlord was pending in the High Court, an application was filed by the petitioner drawing the attention of the appellate authority to certain events and factors which materially affected the respondent‑landlord's entitlement to seek his eviction on the ground of personal need. This application, it appears, was not attended to as no notice of it was sent to the respondent landlord and the High Court in its judgment noted it, observing as follows:‑‑-- "Now I come to an application filed during the pendency of appeal by respondent. This application was made by the respondent on 17‑1‑1988 i.e. 4 years after the First Rent Appeal was filed and this application is under section 151, C.P.C. and no request had been made in the application to summon any additional evidence so as to prove the genuineness of the documents or to come to the conclusion that his house where the appellant was originally residing has been mutated in the name of the appellant. Therefore, these two photo copies of the documents have no evidentiary value, and no inference can be taken against the appellant that he has sufficient accommodation." It has been contended that a too technical view of the matter has been taken which was not justified in rent control proceedings and at least notice should have been served on the respondent‑landlord to meet the averments made. We find that the submissions made too require further examination as the landlord had failed before the Rent Controller and a judgment of variance was recorded for the first time by the impugned order. Leave to appeal is hereby granted. Security in the stun of Rs.2,
500. Status quo with regard to possession would be maintained. The petitioner shall continue depositing the monthly rent with the Rent Controller as required under the law. AA.,/M‑1539/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted,