2002 PLP 383 (SCMR)
ABDUL SATTAR. MEMON‑‑‑Appellant Versus Khatri KARIM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 383 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR. MEMON‑‑‑Appellant Versus Khatri KARIM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVH of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 383 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVH of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 383 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 383 (SCMR) (ABDUL SATTAR. MEMON‑‑‑Appellant Versus Khatri KARIM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. , Suleman Qasim, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Sindh High Court, Karachi dated 4‑6‑1999 in FRA No. 254/96). ‑‑‑‑S.15(2)(viii)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)‑‑‑Bona fide personal need of landlord‑‑‑Landlord did not object to tenant's request that in case he was provided one year time for vacating premises, he would not press his appeal‑‑‑Supreme Court allowed the tenant's request and dismissed his appeal as not pressed in circumstances. Dathe of hearing: 8th February, 2001.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Appeal No. 1360 of 1999, decided on 8th February, 2001. (On appeal from the judgment and order of Sindh High Court, Karachi dated 4‑6‑1999 in FRA No. 254/96). ‑‑‑‑S.15(2)(viii)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)‑‑‑Bona fide personal need of landlord‑‑‑Landlord did not object to tenant's request that in case he was provided one year time for vacating premises, he would not press his appeal‑‑‑Supreme Court allowed the tenant's request and dismissed his appeal as not pressed in circumstances. Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. , Suleman Qasim, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent Dathe of hearing: 8th February, 2001. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he would not press the appeal provided a period of one year is given to the appellant for vacating the prenuses. The other side expresses no objection. Request is allowed and the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The appellant shall hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondent on or before 7th February, 2002 subject to deposit of monthly rent by the appellant in the Court of Rent Controller on or before 10th of every succeeding month. However, if the rent is not paid or possession of the premises is not handed over on the stipulated date, the respondent shall be free to seek ejectment of the appellant by getting issued his warrants of ejectment from the competent executing Court without notice. S.A.K./M.A.K./A‑159/S Order accordingly.