1986 PLP 1605 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASOOL SHAH — Appellant Versus KAMAL KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1605 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL SHAH — Appellant Versus KAMAL KHAN — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1605 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1605 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1605 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASOOL SHAH — Appellant Versus KAMAL KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja M. Afsar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of Baluchistan High Court, dated 12‑6‑1984 whereby an order of eviction passed against the respondent‑tenant by the Rent Controller was set aside and respondent's appeal was allowed. Appellant had sought respondent's eviction from a room of his residential house which was being used by respondent for business purpose on the ground that appellant requires it bona fide for personal use as Baithak of the house. Learned Rent Controller after recording evidence of the parties accepted appellant's plea, but on appeal a learned Judge of Baluchistan High Court held that the room having let out for commercial use could not be got vacated on the ground of personal requirement by the landlord for his residential use. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in view of the rule laid down by this Court in several cases, and reference was made in this connection to Civil Appeal No. Q‑14 of 1984 (Muhammad Ramzan v. Abdul Hannan), decided on 6‑4‑1985 that if, by its very nature and structure, the premises in question are of residential character, the landlord can seek eviction of the tenant on ground of personal requirement for residence; notwithstanding the fact, that the same might have been used by the tenant for commercial purpose. The above view has support in various cases of this Court for example, Amjad Ali Shah v. Iqbal Ahmed Farooqi P L D 1985 S C 242 and Muhammad Ramzan v. Abdul Hannan 1985 S C M R 2082. Since it has been held as finding of the fact that the premises in dispute essentially constitute a part of appellant's residential house, he was entitled to seek respondent's eviction on the ground that he bona fide requires the same for the personal use which fact also stands proved on the record. For these reasons, this appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside with the result that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent is upheld. In the circumstances however the parties are left to bear their own costs. M. I. Appeal allowed.