1975 PLP 249 (SCMR)
INAMULLAH HASHMI — Petitioner Versus IRFAN QURESHI — Respondent
| Citation | 1975 PLP 249 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | INAMULLAH HASHMI — Petitioner Versus IRFAN QURESHI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 249 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 249 (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: 1975 PLP 249 (SCMR) (INAMULLAH HASHMI — Petitioner Versus IRFAN QURESHI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 17th September 1974.
- Akhtar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, dated the 7th of May 1974, in Second Appeal No. 144 of 1973).
S. 13(4)-High Court agreeing with Rent Controller regarding bona fide requirement by landlord of house in dispute for personal use-Contention being concluded by findings of fact, held, cannot beg, permitted to be raised at leave to appeal stage.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑This petition arises out of an application for ejectment on the ground of bona fide personal need of the landlord, the respondent herein. The application was allowed by the trial Court, but on appeal by the petitioner who was the tenant the learned Additional District Judge reversed the decision of the trial Court. The respondent filed a second appeal before the High Court and the order of the trial Court direct ing ejectment was restored. The High Court has agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the respondent‑landlord did require the house in question for his bona fide personal use. It has been contended before us that the application for ejectment was mala fide. The High Court having agreed with the Rent Controller that their house was required bona fide for personal use, this contention cannot now be permitted to be raised, as it has been concluded by findings of fact. The petitioner has next challenged the sale whereby the respondent purchased the house in dispute. This contention again is not tenable in view of the letter written by the petitioner's lawyer in response to the notice served on him by the respondent. In the said letter the change of owner ship of the house in question was noted and it was stated that the petitioner would pay the rent to the respondent from the 1st of November 1969, at certain rate. No point of law has been raised before us nor does it arise on the facts of the case. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. We, however, allow the petitioner two months' time from date to vacate the quarter in question. Petition dismissed.