1989 PLP 1370 (SCMR)
ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN Petitioner Versus Mst. AMINA BEGUM‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1370 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN Petitioner Versus Mst. AMINA BEGUM‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1370 (SCMR)?
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 1989 PLP 1370 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1370 (SCMR) (ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN Petitioner Versus Mst. AMINA BEGUM‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th December, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgments dated 22‑10‑1987 and 1‑12‑1986 passed by the High Court of Sind in F.R.As. 4 of 1987 and 69 of 1986 respectively). ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (173), Art.185(3)‑‑Tenant's eviction on ground of bona fide requirement of landlady's son and for default in payment of rent‑ Eviction order maintained by High Court in appeal‑‑Issues of personal requirement and default in payment of rent having been decided concurrently by two Courts below on the basis of evidence, and no question of law having arisen in the case, petitions against eviction required no consideration and were dismissed‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑This order will dispose of the above two petitions, which though arise out of two separate proceedings filed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, but relate to the same premises and are between the same parties. 2. The dispute in the case relates to a shop owned by the respondent. By an application made under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, abetment of the petitioner was sought by the respondent from the said premises on the ground that the shop was required by the respondent for the use of her son namely Noor Ahmad, who wanted to start his own business. The application was resisted by the petitioner whereupon an issue `whether the disputed shop was required by the respondent in good faith for the use of her son Noor Ahmad', was framed by the Rent Controller. After recording the evidence of the parties, the issue was decided in favour of the landlady and the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question. The order of the Rent Controller was challenged in appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment. 3. The learned High Court has found that the respondent had successfully proved her case of bona fide requirement whereas the petitioner was unable to produce any evidence in support of his defence. 4. We heard the learned counsel and have gone through the impugned judgment as also the order of the Rent Controller. The issue of persona requirement stands decided concurrently by two Courts on the basis of evidence and no question of law arises in the case for consideration. C.P. No.24‑K of 1987, therefore, merits no consideration and is dismissed. 5. In C. P. No.455‑K of 1987, eviction proceedings were initiated by the respondent/landlady against the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. The two Courts concurrently found that the petitioner had committed default in payment of rent. The explanation furnished by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and, for good reasons, as mentioned in the impugned judgment. 6. The order of eviction passed on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the respondent was maintained by the High Court as per judgment impugned in C.P. No.24‑K of 1987, which has been dismissed by this Court as mentioned above. In this view of the matter, this petition, which though of no value to the petitioner, has no merit and is dismissed. A./Z‑64/S Petition dismissed.