1989SCMR1670 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. HAJIRA BI Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR1670 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. HAJIRA BI Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1670 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR1670 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1670 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YOUNUS and another‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. HAJIRA BI Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Chaudhry Iftekhar Ahmed, Advocate and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment and order dated 13‑9‑1987 of Sind High Court in F.R.A. No. 651 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art.185(3)‑‑Eviction petition‑‑No material defect in the appraisement of evidence by High Court was found‑‑Order of High Court, dismissing eviction petition, not suffering from any infirmity, legal or otherwise‑‑Tenant though had committed default of over a month yet was entitled to exercise of discretion in his favour in the facts and circumstances of the case‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The landlord's side in a rented premises dispute had sought leave to appeal against the acceptance of respondent's First Rent Appeal by the High Court. The respondent/tenant was ordered to be evicted by a learned Rent Controller on the grounds of default and nuisance. The High Court on facts found that it was not a case of nuisance. Regarding the issue of default it was held that the rent having been paid within sixty days of the default this ground was not available against the tenant. Accordingly the eviction order was set aside. Leave to appeal has now been sought. Learned counsel has tried to argue on factual side that the conduct of the respondent amounted to actionable nuisance. We after hearing him on this point do not find any material defect in the appraisement of evidence by the High Court. The order in this behalf does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. On the question of default it might be possible in the facts of this case to hold that the rent should have been paid within 15 days of default and hence there was a default of over a month. But in that behalf the tenant, again in the facts and circumstances of this case, was entitled to exercise of discretion in his favour. This petition, therefore, fails and thus leave to appeal is refused. M.A.K./M‑916/S Leave refused.