1989SCMR1106 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD FAZIL KIANI Petitioner Versus Raja SHAHBAZ KHAN Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR1106 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAZIL KIANI Petitioner Versus Raja SHAHBAZ KHAN Respondent |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Ordinance (XI of 1963)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1106 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Ordinance (XI of 1963)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1106 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Usman Ali Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1106 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD FAZIL KIANI Petitioner Versus Raja SHAHBAZ KHAN Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8th February, 1988 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in FA.O. No.32 of 1987). ‑‑‑S.17‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art.185(3)‑‑Personal bona fide need of landlord‑‑Landlord was occupying a rented premises in L while his other family members were in R‑‑Landlord wanted to shift to R and occupy the premises in dispute‑‑Landlord in order to establish his bona fides stated that if the Supreme Court required, he was prepared to offer security undertaking, that he would shift to R and occupy the premises in question within the statutory period if the tenant is ordered to be evicted with the further condition that he would not vacate the said premises for as long a period as would be fixed by the tenant‑‑Prima facie there could not be any better offer from a landlord m such a case‑‑Leave to appeal, therefore, was granted to the landlord subject to his submitting the undertaking as soon as possible but in any case before the hearing of the appeal.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a landlord in a Cantonment area, against the acceptance by the High Court of tenant/respondent's appeal against eviction which was ordered on the ground of personal, requirement of the petitioner. According to learned counsel the case of the petitioner was that he was occupying a rented premises in Lahore while his other family members being in Rawalpindi he bona fide wanted to shift to Rawalpindi and occupy the premises in dispute. He has also contended that the approach of the learned Judge in the High Court requiring a landlord to establish the requirement or need as being "indispensable", is beyond the legal requirement. He has also, with respect, commented upon some other observations in the impugned judgment, as well. In order to further establish his bona fides the learned counsel states that if the Court required, the petitioner offers security undertaking, that he would shift to Rawalpindi and occupy the premises in question within the statutory A period if the respondent is ordered to be evicted with the further condition that he would not vacate the premises for as long a period as would be fixed by the respondent. Prima facie, there could not be any better offer from a landlord in a case like the present one to show his bona fides. In the light of what has been stated above leave to appeal is granted subject to the petitioner's submitting an undertaking in the above referred terms t in writing as soon as possible but in any case before the hearing of the appeal. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record; with, direction to the parties to file all additional documents, which would be necessary for its disposal. M.BA./M‑807/S Leave granted.