1975 PLP 388 (SCMR)
Mst. RAHMAT B. JAMES-Petitioner Versus C. JOHN-Respondent
| Citation | 1975 PLP 388 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. RAHMAT B. JAMES-Petitioner Versus C. JOHN-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 388 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 388 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 388 (SCMR) (Mst. RAHMAT B. JAMES-Petitioner Versus C. JOHN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Adjournment‑Advocate on record stating his clients' wish to engage another Advocate‑Advocate‑on‑Record allowed to apply for discharge and given time for purpose‑Petition adjourned to enable engagement of another Advocate.
- K A. Ghani, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- The learned Advocate‑on‑Record, however, now states that his client wants to engage another Advocate. If so, the learned Advocate‑on‑Record should apply for his discharge. The learned Advocate‑on‑Record prays for time to enable him to obtain his discharge. This petition is, accordingly, adjourned to the next session of the Court at Karachi to enable the present Advocate‑on‑Record to obtain his discharge and to enable the petitioner to engage another Advocate, No further adjournment will be granted.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: filth March 1975. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court dismissing a second appeal from the decision of the Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the order of the Rent Controller for the ejectment of the petitioner herein from premises No. G/Z126/10, situated at Allahdad Chand Jo Goth, Hyderabad. This was an evacuee plot on which the respondent had raised some construction. It was ultimately transferred to him and a P. T. O. was Issued in his favour on the 20th November 1965. The petitioner was a tenant of the respondent in respect of the said premises under a rent deed executed by her. After the transfer, the respondent served a notice, on her by Registered A. D. demanding rent from January 1964 at the rate of Rs. 40 per month which was fixed by the rent deed. The demand for rent was‑ also accompanied by a demand to vacate the premises and handover vacant premises possession. The petitioner failed to pay the rent. Hence the respondent applied for her eviction. ' These proceedings were contested by the petitioner on a number of grounds relating to the validity of the notice, the propriety of the transfer of the promises to the respondent and as to the nature of the property, namely, as to whether it was a house or a plot. The Rent Controller, held, against the petitioner and ordered the eviction. This order was upheld in appeal by the First Appellate Court and on the second appeal by the High Court. She has now come up for special leave to appeal but, in the meats time, she has actually been evicted from the premises as no stay order was granted. The learned Advocate‑on‑Record, however, now states that his client wants to engage another Advocate. If so, the learned Advocate‑on‑Record should apply for his discharge. The learned Advocate‑on‑Record prays for time to enable him to obtain his discharge. This petition is, accordingly, adjourned to the next session of the Court at Karachi to enable the present Advocate‑on‑Record to obtain his discharge and to enable the petitioner to engage another Advocate, No further adjournment will be granted. Hearing adjourned.