1986 PLP 1655 (SCMR)
DILLAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA SULTANA — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1655 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | DILLAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA SULTANA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution oaf Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1655 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution oaf Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1655 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir 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: 1986 PLP 1655 (SCMR) (DILLAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAZIA SULTANA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abul Khair, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 16th June, 1986.
- Abul Khair, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind Karachi, dated 24-11-1985 in F.R.A. No. 1232/82).
Art. 185(3)--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21- Finding of High Court, rooted in evidence recorded in case, not calling for interference--Argument in support of petition amounting to a request for reappraisal of evidence, held, could not be granted--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 24‑11‑1985 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and thereby upholding order of the Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises. Learned Rent Controller passed that order on being satisfied from the evidence recorded in the case that the respondent‑landlady required the premises for her personal use and the petitioner was also defaulter in payment of rent. The arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner rarely amount to a request for re‑appraisal. Of the evidence which obviously cannot be granted. Even otherwise, the findings of the High Court being rooted in the evidence recorded in the case do not call for interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.