1985 PLP 879 (SCMR)
Ch. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus Sheikh MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 879 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus Sheikh MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 879 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 879 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 879 (SCMR) (Ch. MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑Petitioner Versus Sheikh MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hakam Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record with Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.
- Date of hearing: 9th October, 1984.
- ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑Facts of the case briefly stated are that petitioner filed an application for respondent's eviction from the demised shop‑premises on the ground of default committed by respondent in payment of rent and also that petitioner required the premises for his personal use. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence produced by the parties dismissed the application, and petitioner's appeal to the Additional District Judge also failed. He then filed a second appeal before Lahore High Court which met with the same fate, and he no seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13(3)(a)(ii)‑‑Ejectment application not granted‑‑Personal need not being proved, order upheld in second appeal‑‑Plea of misreading/ non‑reading of material evidence on crucial points not substantiated‑‑High Court having reached legitimate conclusions from evidence on record, no interference called for‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑Facts of the case briefly stated are that petitioner filed an application for respondent's eviction from the demised shop‑premises on the ground of default committed by respondent in payment of rent and also that petitioner required the premises for his personal use. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence produced by the parties dismissed the application, and petitioner's appeal to the Additional District Judge also failed. He then filed a second appeal before Lahore High Court which met with the same fate, and he no seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. The only plea raised on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court was that due consideration under the law was not paid to the ground urged by the petitioner that he bona fide required the premises for his personal use. The High Court dealt with this aspect of the case independently, in great details, and reached the conclusion that "the appellant (petitioner herein) has failed to prove that the rented shop is required by him for his own use, and that the business premises already in his possession is not suitable (sufficient) for his needs." Mr. Hakam Qureshi, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submits that the High Court has misread the evidence and has also ignored material evidence on crucial points. After having gone through the record before us in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel we find no substance in the pleas raised by the learned counsel. On the other hand, the High Court has reached certain conclusions from the evidence on record which are quite legitimate, and do not call for interference by this Court. The petition is therefore dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.