1989 PLP 233 (SCMR)
MOOSA — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZOHRA BAT — Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 233 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, 71 |
| Parties | MOOSA — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZOHRA BAT — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 233 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 233 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Shafiur Rahman, 71.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 233 (SCMR) (MOOSA — Petitioner Versus Mst. ZOHRA BAT — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent. _
- Date of hearing: 7th September, .1988. .
- S.M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
September, 1988. (From the Judgment of the High Court of Sind, Karachi dated 16-2-1987 passed in F.RA. No. 261 of 1984).
S. 15--Ejectment--Bona fide personal requirement--Landlady not owner of property but daughter of owner and as daughter of owner her locus standi was substantially beyond dispute and her need could be a valid ground for obtaining eviction of tenant.
Judgment & Decree
S.M. Abbas, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. _ Date of hearing: 7th September, .1988. . SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The Petitioner, a tenant now ejected from the premises, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court dated 16‑2‑1987 whereby his appeal against the eviction order was dismissed. The Respondent obtained an Order of eviction of the Petitioner on the ground that she was landlady/owner of the Shop premises and was in bona fide personal need of it. The ground now taken up by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Respondent was only a landlady and not the owner of the property and personal need had necessarily to be of the owner and not of the landlady. This specific objection was rejected by the High Court by ohservine as hereunder:‑ "The first above‑noted contention of the learned counsel is without substance inasmuch as not only that he did not dispute the ownership of the appellant in the written statement but even in the memo. of appeal filed in this Court it is clearly stated by him under the heading `Facts of the case' that the applicant/respondent is the owner and landlady of shop premises bearing No, G/1, in the building on Plot No. OT‑6/126, Custodian No. 1‑A‑648, Old Town Quarters, Karachi, and the opponent/appellant is the tenant in respect of the said shop premises at the rate of Rs. 75 per month'. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has thus no merits and it is repelled accordingly." It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that notwithstanding his admissions it was the established position that the respondent was not the owner of the property though she was the landlady. Not being herself the owner her need could not be sufficient justification for obtaining the ejectment of the Petitioner. Apart from the admission of the Petitioner in the pleadings taken note of and given effect to by the High Court it is admitted that the Respondent happens to be the daughter of the owner of the property and as daughter her need could be a valid ground for obtaining the eviction of the tenant. In the circumstances, the locus standi of the respondent was substantially beyond dispute and her need cannot be ignored not as that of the landlady but as that of a daughter of the owner of the premises. M.Y.H./M-621/S Leave refused.