1989 SCMR 1810 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SULEMAN SULFI‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AZRA SHAMIM Respondent
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1810 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SULEMAN SULFI‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AZRA SHAMIM Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1810 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1810 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1810 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SULEMAN SULFI‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AZRA SHAMIM Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th Fabruary, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 9th May, 1988 of High Court Sind in F.R.A. No.40G/88). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Petition 'for leave to appeal was liable to be dismissed as barred by time‑‑Supreme Court, however, heard the petition on merits also in circumstances. (b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Closing of tenant's evidence and eviction‑‑Supreme Court, on perusal of order‑sheet, reasons for closing tenant's case and observations of High Court with regard to tenant's conduct of the case, was satisfied that tenant was afforded fair and enough opportunity of substantiating his plea‑‑Supreme Court, on merits also agreed with the finding of High Court that tenant was liable to' be evicted qn the ground of default of payment of rent‑‑On query whether tenant would like to place before Supreme Court any material which he might have desired to place before the Rent Controller and was unable to do so, tenant's counsel did not evince any interest in availing of the opportunity‑‑No justification was pointed out for interference with the impugned judgment of High Court‑‑Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑This petition is time barred and is accordingly liable to be dismissed as barred by time. However, we have heard the learned counsel on merits also. The petitioner/tenant has been ordered to be evicted on ground of default in payment of rent. His first rent appeal having been dismissed by the Controller he has sought leave to appeal. Grievance of the petitioner is two‑fold. One, that petitioner's evidence was closed by the learned Rent Controller without sufficient justification. Secondly, that the High Court also did not afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; and lastly, that the findings of fact against the petitioner on the basis of material placed by the parties on record, are erroneous. We on having perused the order‑sheet, the reasons for closing the petitioner's case and the observations of the High Court with regard to conduct of the case from the petitioner's side, are satisfied that he was afforded enough and fair opportunity of substantiating his pleas. On merits also we agree with the High Court that the petitioner was liable to be evicted on ground of default in payment of rent. It may be mentioned here that when asked whether the petitioner would like to place before this Court any material which he might have desired to place before the learned Rent Controller and was unable to do, the learned counsel did not evince any interest in availing of this opportunity. After hearing the learned counsel at some length on all relevant aspects of the case we do not find any justification, for interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. A.A./M‑983/S Leave refused.