1986 PLP 1207 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHOAIB — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1207 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J. Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHOAIB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1207 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1207 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J. Shafiur Rahman 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 1207 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHOAIB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz S.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th April, 1986.
- Hafiz S.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6-4-1986 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Writ Petition No. 142 of 1986).
Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13(3)(a)(ii)(a) & 15--Ejectment--Bona fide personal need- Proof of--Appellate Court accepting testimony of landlord in regard to his need being bona fide
Order impugned in writ jurisdiction--Plea that solitary statement of landlord was not enough to establish his bona fide need of shop for his own occupation, repelled--Evidence of respondent-landlord sufficient to prove his need--Law does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact--It is quality of evidence which determines its acceptance--Leave to appeal refused
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑It was contended by the petitioner while resisting the application for ejectment on the ground of personal need that it was neither genuine nor bona fide which plea prevailed with the Rent Controller who dismissed the application on 15th of May, 1985, but in appeal the appellate Court accepted the testimony of the respondent in regard to his need being bona fide. The petitioner filed a constitution petition to challenge the conclusion on facts by the appellate Court and contended that the solitary statement of the landlord was not enough to establish his bona fide need of the shop for his own occupation. The High Court held that the appellate Court in holding that the evidence of the respondent was sufficient to prove his need committed no illegality either of law or procedure which conclusion is unexceptionable as the law does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a fact. There is therefore, no legal error in the judgment as it is the quality of the evidence which determines its acceptance. Accordingly, there is no substance in this petition which is dismissed. M . I. Petition dismissed.