SCMR 1986

1986 PLP 1824 (SCMR)

Messrs M. ISMAIL & Co. and others — Petitioners Versus TAHIR SHEIKH — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 16-K of 1986, decided on 4th June, 1986.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Qadir Shaikh, Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1986 PLP 1824 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Abdul Qadir Shaikh, Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
Parties Messrs M. ISMAIL & Co. and others — Petitioners Versus TAHIR SHEIKH — Respondent
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1824 (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 1824 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Qadir Shaikh, 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 1824 (SCMR) (Messrs M. ISMAIL & Co. and others — Petitioners Versus TAHIR SHEIKH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Muhammad Ali Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
  • Khalilur Rehman Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
  • Date of hearing: 4th June, 1986.
  • Muhammad Ali Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
  • Khalilur Rehman Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
  • ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of learned Single Judge of Sind High Court, dated 24‑10‑1985 whereby an appeal filed by the respondent‑landlord was allowed and as a result petitioners were directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent. Learned Judge in the High Court on reappraisal of the evidence recorded in the case held that petitioners were defaulters in payment of rent to respondent landlord for the period from August, 1971 to August, 1973, and on this view of the case he reversed the finding of the Rent Controller in this regard set aside the order of the Rent Controller whereby respondent's application for petitioners eviction was dismissed.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 24-10-1985 in F.R.A. No. 1018 of 1982).

Art. 185(3)--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21- Ejectment--High Court on re-appraisal of evidence reversing findings of Rent Controller since default in payment of rent was almost admitted- Order impugned--Held: No exception could be taken to the view that has prevailed with High Court that petitioners were defaulters in payment of rent--Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of learned Single Judge of Sind High Court, dated 24‑10‑1985 whereby an appeal filed by the respondent‑landlord was allowed and as a result petitioners were directed to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent. Learned Judge in the High Court on reappraisal of the evidence recorded in the case held that petitioners were defaulters in payment of rent to respondent landlord for the period from August, 1971 to August, 1973, and on this view of the case he reversed the finding of the Rent Controller in this regard set aside the order of the Rent Controller whereby respondent's application for petitioners eviction was dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of record before us, we find that no exception can be taken in j view that has prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court that petitioners were defaulters in payment of rent as stated above, this fact in the words of the learned Judge in the High Court "is almost admitted". The petition has no merit, and is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.