1984 PLP 160 (SCMR)
Mst. SAEERA BIB1-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD-Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 160 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SAEERA BIB1-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD-Respondent |
| Primary Law | ----- Art. 185(3)-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (V! of 1959), S. 13-Ejectment application for default and personal need Landlady in her ejectment application taking plea that :, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 160 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: ----- Art. 185(3)-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (V! of 1959), S. 13-Ejectment application for default and personal need Landlady in her ejectment application taking plea that :, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 160 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 160 (SCMR) (Mst. SAEERA BIB1-Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. M. Iqbal Bhutta, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent
- Date of hearing : 6th August, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 1st April, 1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in S. A. O. No. 435 of 1979). - Husband of landlady as her attorney stating that : - High Court construing requirement as stated by husband to be: contrary to ground taken in ejectment application-Leave to appeal granted to consider question whether there was practically any con flict inasmuch as landlady's husband had deposed in her place.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioner/landlord is aggrieved by the judgment dated 1-4-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby in Second Appeal of the respondent/tenant, it set aside the order of the respondent's ejectment by reversing the findings on issues of default and personal use and dismissed the petitioner's ejectment application.
2. The rent for the alleged period of default, that is, November 1973 to March, 1974, had been remitted by three money orders, i.e. Exh. R/1, dated 22:2-1974 for Rs. 20, Exh. R/2, dated 9-3-1974 for Rs. 40 and Exh.R/3, dated 22-3-1974 for Rs.
40. Learned counsel urges that there was default in the payment of rent at least for the months of November and December, 1973.
3. On the question of personal use, the petitioner had taken the plea in her ejectment application that: Her husband, who had appeared as her attorney, had stated : The High Court had construed this requirement to be contrary to the ground taken in the ejectment application. Learned counsel contends u at there was practically no conflict inasmuch as the petitioner's husband had been deposing in her place.
4. The points raised require consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Security shall be furnished in the sum of Rs. 2,
500. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.