MLD 1985

1985 PLP 1621 (MLD)

ABDUL KARIM — Appellant Versus MANZOOR AHMAD and anothers — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
First Rent Appeal No.242 of 1982 and Civil Miscellaneous No.303 of 1985, decided on 17th March, 1985.
Honorable Judges
Ajmal Mian, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1985 PLP 1621 (MLD)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members Ajmal Mian, J
Parties ABDUL KARIM — Appellant Versus MANZOOR AHMAD and anothers — Respondents
Primary Law Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1621 (MLD)?

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 1985 PLP 1621 (MLD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1621 (MLD) (ABDUL KARIM — Appellant Versus MANZOOR AHMAD and anothers — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)

Representation

  • Nemo for Appellant.
  • Gharib Nawaz Daccawala for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

Ss. 15-A & 21(1)--Ejectment on ground of personal requirement- Reletting--Application against reletting--Application of tenants for summoning record or to summon eight persons mentioned in application on ground that after ejectment of tenants by landlord on ground of personal requirement from tenements in building in dispute same were let out by landlord instead of retaining them with him--High Court declined to grant such application for composite relief with observation that tenants might file affidavit separately containing details of tenants vacated and names of new tenants.

Judgment & Decree

This is an application for summoning the record or to summon 8 persons mentioned in the application on the ground that after the disposal of the rent case, several tenements were vacated by the tenants in the building in dispute but the same were let out by the appellant instead of retaining them with him though the rent application in question against the respondents was filed and allowed on the ground of personal requirement. I am not inclined to grant such an application for composite relief. The respondents may file affidavit separately containing the details of the tenements vacated after the disposal of the present Rent Case and the names of the new tenants. A copy of the above affidavit, may be furnished to the other side, who may file a reply. The above, application is disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T. Order accordingly