1988 PLP 1586 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AYL'B‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ARIFIN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1586 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYL'B‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ARIFIN‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1586 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1586 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1586 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AYL'B‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ARIFIN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.Rashiduddin for Appellant.
- Ahmedullah Farooqui for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss.15 & 21‑‑Personal requirement‑‑Shop‑‑Landlord who required shop in question for his personal use allegedly owned an adjacent shop which he stated was in possession of his Mother‑‑Case remanded to Rent Controller to decide additional issues as to who was in possession of said adjacent shop and whether his brother was doing business in any other shop than the said adjacent shop.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal is directed against an order dated 14‑1‑1987 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Karachi South in Rent Case No.368 of 1985 allowing the respondent's application for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. From the evidence on record, it seems that the respondent in addition to the suit shop also owned adjacent ‑shop to the suit shop. In the affidavit‑in‑evidence the respondent had averred "that I have no shop of my own to run the business and I am m dire need of the shop in question which is suitable for me. I require this shop for my own use and occupation reasonably and in good faith.
3. In the cross‑examination he admitted the fact that he owns the adjacent shop but has stated that the above shop is in possession of his brother. The appellant in the present appeal has filed an application for an additional evidence to prove the factum that factually the respondent is in possession of the adjacent shop which fact was suppressed by him from the Rent Controller. In support thereof certain alleged photographs have been filed, in which the respondent is allegedly sitting in the adjacent shop and doing milk vending business. On the other hand, the respondent has filed affidavit of his brother in rebuttal to the above application averring therein that factually he was the tenant and he was in possession of the adjacent shop and not his brother, the respondent. In my view, it is a fit case which I should remand to the learned Rent Controller to decide the following additional issues:‑ ISSUES: (i) Who was in possession of the adjacent shop owned by the respondent at the time when the rent application was filed; and (ii) Whether the respondent's brother was doing business in any other shop than the adjacent shop. The learned Rent Controller will allow the parties to lead evidence on the additional issues and he may also inspect the site, if he considers it necessary. I would direct him to decide the application within three months from the date' of the receipt of the copy of this order. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./M‑481 /K Case remanded.