1968 SCMR 555 (PLP)
ABDUL QADIR-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN FIKREE-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 555 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J |
| Parties | ABDUL QADIR-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN FIKREE-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 555 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 555 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 555 (PLP) (ABDUL QADIR-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN FIKREE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. Y. Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz M. Dastagir, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 26th August 1967, in 2nd Appeal No. 101 of 1963). Appeal to Supreme Court-Finding based on proper apprecia tion of evidence and concurrently given by three Courts below-Not susceptible to interference by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-The petitioner Abdul Qadir who is in occupation of a flat belonging to the respondent Muhammad Amin Fikree, was sued by the latter, on the basis that he was a trespasser for ejectment and compensation for use and occupation. The concurrent finding of the three Courts below is that he was a trespasser in the premises, having entered them when a tenant Bunyad Hussain left, without the knowledge or consent of the landlord, who sued as soon as he became aware of the change in the occupancy. For some time, a rent collector employed by the landlord had been receiving "rent" from Abdul Qadir, as shown by receipts, but it was held that this was not done under authority or with the knowledge of the landlord. Abdul Qadir seeks special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his second appeal by the High Court. The finding that he is a trespasser is based on proper appreciation of the A evidence led in the case, and being concurrently given by three Courts, is not susceptible of interference by this Court. More over, the case sought to be made out, namely, that he is a tenant in the premises was set up by him in a separate suit, and was finally defeated when his appeal against the dismissal of that suit was dismissed by a District Judge, and he did not choose to appeal further. This petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.