1987 PLP 1826 (SCMR)
Haji ABDUL GHAFOOR RISHI‑‑Petitioner Versus RAZA MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1826 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Haji ABDUL GHAFOOR RISHI‑‑Petitioner Versus RAZA MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1826 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1826 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1826 (SCMR) (Haji ABDUL GHAFOOR RISHI‑‑Petitioner Versus RAZA MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Iftikhar Muhammad Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioner, who is the landlord of the property bearing Municipal No.2‑13/5‑50 situated at Chuharmal Road, Quetta, filed an application for ejectment of the respondent on 26‑5‑1978 under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 on the ground of his personal bona fide requirement. The application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 3‑10‑1985. 2. The petitioner had also applied for eviction of his another tenant namely Khudai` Nazar, from a portion of the same building situated on the ground floor, allegedly comprising of one room with amenities on 26‑5‑1987, which was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. Khudai Nazar had come up to this Court after his appeal was dismissed by the learned High Court, seeking leave to appeal through C . P . S . L . A . No. 62‑Q of 1985 which was dismissed on 3rd May, 1986. The respondent, during the course of hearing of his appeal before the High Court, moved an application under section 151, C.P.C. seeking permission to raise an additional ground in the memo of appeal as under:‑ "Since the present landlord had obtained possession of one portion of the building in question, hence he had got sufficient accommodation where he could reside and the portion in possession of the appellant was no more required by him for personal bona fide need." In spite of opposition on behalf of the petitioner, the above plea was considered by the learned High Court, and relying upon proviso 2 to section 13(3) of the Ordinance, it was held that the petitioner had failed to prove that the premises, which he got vacated from Khudai Nazar, were no longer suitable for his need. In this view of the matter, the appeal of the respondent was allowed as per impugned judgment. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plea, that the petitioner had already secured possession of another premises, was not raised in the written statement by the respondent and as such the petitioner was seriously prejudiced inasmuch as he had no opportunity to show that even after having acquired possession of another premises from Khudai Nazar, he still bona fide required the premises in dispute according to his need. The above contention requires examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.500. Since a short point of law is involved, the appeal will be heard on the same record and is directed to be fixed during this session on 20‑4‑1987. M.I./A‑83/S Leave granted.