1990 PLP 745 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YAKOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus SALEEM AKHTAR‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 745 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAKOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus SALEEM AKHTAR‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 745 (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 1990 PLP 745 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: 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: 1990 PLP 745 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YAKOOB‑‑Petitioner Versus SALEEM AKHTAR‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Suleman Kassam, Advocate and A. Aziz Dastagir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Imam Ali Kazi and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th March, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On Appeal from the judgment and order of the Sindh High Court dated 23‑5‑1983 in F.R.A. No.12 or 1983). ‑‑‑Ss.15(2)(vii) & 21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Finding recorded by High Court on issue of personal requirement of landlord was based on reappraisal of evidence on record‑‑‑No question of law arising in facts and circumstances of case‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal, against order of High Court merited no consideration.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss.15(2)(vii) & 21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Finding recorded by High Court on issue of personal requirement of landlord was based on reappraisal of evidence on record‑‑‑No question of law arising in facts and circumstances of case‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal, against order of High Court merited no consideration. Suleman Kassam, Advocate and A. Aziz Dastagir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Imam Ali Kazi and M.S. Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th March, 1984. SA. NUSRAT, J.‑‑‑The respondent‑landlord applied for the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of his personal and bona fide requirement of the disputed premises and also on the ground that the petitioner had damaged the premises thereby diminishing the value and utility of the same. The application was dismissed by the Rent Controller on both the grounds. The order of the Rent Controller was challenged in First Appeal by the respondent before the High Court which was allowed as per impugned judgment and the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of personal bona fide requirement of the premises by. the respondent was reversed, and the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment. The finding recorded by the learned High Court on the issue of personal requirement is based on reappraisal of evidence and is one of fact. No question of law arises in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petition merits no consideration and is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1218/S Petition dismissed.