1984 PLP 1295 (SCMR)
Mst. ZULEKHA BAI and others — Petitioners Versus The MASJID-E-MIRAJUN NABI TRUST and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1295 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ZULEKHA BAI and others — Petitioners Versus The MASJID-E-MIRAJUN NABI TRUST and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1295 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1295 (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: 1984 PLP 1295 (SCMR) (Mst. ZULEKHA BAI and others — Petitioners Versus The MASJID-E-MIRAJUN NABI TRUST and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Gharib Nawaz Daccawala, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1984.
- S.M. Gharib Nawaz Daccawala, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated 22-2-1984 in F.R.A. No.466 of 1982).
Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss.2(6) & 13(2)(vi), (5-B)--Ejectment from plot of land on ground that disputed rented land was reasonably and in good faith required for construction of a mosque--Land in question was rented to tenant for commercial purposes--Plan for building of proposed mosque proved before trial Court--Finding of High Court that subject-matter of tenancy was rented land as defined in S.2(6) and case of landlord was, therefore, fully covered by S. 13(2)(vi) and that upon construction of mosque, tenant shall stand deprived of benefit of S.13(5-B)--Point was covered by rule laid down in Barkat Ali Shah v. Aziz Ullah and others P L D 1980 S C 138--Findings of High Court being unexceptionable petition for leave to appeal dismisses.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑ The dispute in this petition for leave to appeal relates to a plot of land wherefrom the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted. The application for ejectment of the petitioners was filed by the respondents Nos.2 to 6, who are trustees of the Masjid‑e‑Mirajun Nabi Trust, on the ground that the disputed rented land was reasonably and in good faith required for construction of a mosque. The disputed land was let out to the petitioners for commercial purpose by the two lady owners of the land who created the trust and appointed the respondents as trustees. The petitioners have been using the land for the purpose of manufacturing bus bodies. The respondents got the plan for the proposed building approved which was produced during the trial and proved through a witness from the Sind Building Control Authority. The application after contest by the petitioners was allowed by the Rent Controller by his order, dated 13th March, 1982 and the petitioners' first appeal challenging the said order was dismissed by the High Court as per impugned judgment, dated 22nd February, 1984 which is the subject‑matter of this petition. The two‑fold contentions raised before the High Court were:‑ (a) that the requirement of construction of a mosque was not covered under the provisions of the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance); and , (b) that upon construction of the mosque the petitioners shall stand deprived of the benefit of section 13(5‑B) of the Ordinance. The learned High Court has held, and rightly so, that subject matter of tenancy was the rented land as defined in section 2(6) of the Ordinance and the case of the respondents was, therefore, fully covered by section 13(2) (vi) of the Ordinance. In relation to the second contention, it was held that the point was covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Barkat Ali Shah v. Azizullah Khan and others P L D 1980 S C 138. The contentions, noted above, were reiterated before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners and no fresh grounds were urged. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgment of the High Court, we are satisfied that the findings of the learned High Court are unexceptionable. The petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly. M . Z . M . Petition dismissed.