1988 PLP 71 (SCMR)
Mst. SAIRA BAI — Petitioner Versus Syed ANIS-UR-REHMAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 71 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. SAIRA BAI — Petitioner Versus Syed ANIS-UR-REHMAN — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 71 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 71 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: 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: 1988 PLP 71 (SCMR) (Mst. SAIRA BAI — Petitioner Versus Syed ANIS-UR-REHMAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mubarak Hussain Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court with Nazir Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.-- The petitioner who owns a shop premises situated in Haidary Memorial Market, Barkat-e-Haidary, North Nazimabad, Karachi made an application for the ejectment of the respondent /tenant on the ground that the disputed premises was required by her in good faith for the use and occupation of her son Khozain Hussain Rangwalla. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller by his order, dated 12-11-1983 on the finding that the petitioner had successfully proved her case of bona fide requirement of the disputed shop for her son. This order was challenged by the respondent in First Rent Appeal before the learned Sind High Court which was allowed as per impugned judgment. 2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plea of bona fide personal requirement was specifically pleaded in the rent application which had gone uncontroverted. He referred to us a passage from the judgment of the learned High Court from which it appears that the learned Judge was rather influenced by the fact that the petitioner had not given any details with regard to the kind of business which was intended to be carried on in the disputed premises. This, according to the learned counsel, was not legal ground for interference with a finding of fact. He invited our attention to a case of Mst. Tauheed Khanum v. Muhammad Shamshad 1980 S C M R 593 wherein it has been held that the applicant seeking ejectment was not required to show the nature of the intended business to be carried on in the required premises. 3. The above contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.1,000. M.I./S-72/S Leave granted.