1985 PLP 1602 (SCMR)
Syed TAUSIF AHMED ZAIDI — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAHEEDA NIGHAT Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1602 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | Syed TAUSIF AHMED ZAIDI — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAHEEDA NIGHAT Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1602 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1602 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1602 (SCMR) (Syed TAUSIF AHMED ZAIDI — Petitioner Versus Mst. NAHEEDA NIGHAT Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th January, 1985.
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑Facts of this case briefly stated are that the Rent Controller, Karachi dismissed respondent's application for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that respondent had failed to prove that there existed relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. On respondent's appeal., Additional District Judge, Karachi reversed the finding of the Rent Controller, holding that it was cogently proved from the oral and documentary evidence recorded in the case that respondent was owner of the premises in question and petitioner's occupation thereof was that of her tenant. Petitioner challenged the judgment of the First Appellate Court in a second appeal before Sind High Court, but it was dismissed as the learned Judge in the High Court who dealt with the case, on independent reappraisal of the evidence upheld the finding of the Additional District Judge. It is in these circumstances that petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
- Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing in support of the petition submits that the High Court has erred in not appreciating the plea that there exists no reliable evidence to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
- After having gone through the record of the case, we find no substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel, for, apart from' the oral evidence, a cogent documentary evidence was produced by the' respondent, particularly document exhibited as A‑2 executed by, respondent in petitioner's favour for issue of a ration card to him as being the tenant of the premises in question. Mr. Faizanul Haq admits at the bar that a ration card for petitioner's family was issued on the basis of this document. Obviously, therefore, petitioner utilized this document taking advantage of the fact that he was petitioner's tenant in respect of the premises. The First Appellate Court as well as the High Court have rightly held that in the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner in rebuttal, respondent had successfully established that she was the owner of the demised premises and the petitioner was her tenant.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 195(3)--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21 --Landlord and tenant--Document executed by landlady in favour of tenant on basis of which tenant was granted Ration Card on basis of being tenant of such landlady in respect of premises--Findings of First Appellate Court as well as High Court that in absence of any evidence produced by tenant in rebuttal, landlady had successfully established relationship of landlord and tenant--Concurrent findings of such Courts considered justified by Supreme Court and leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑Facts of this case briefly stated are that the Rent Controller, Karachi dismissed respondent's application for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that respondent had failed to prove that there existed relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties. On respondent's appeal., Additional District Judge, Karachi reversed the finding of the Rent Controller, holding that it was cogently proved from the oral and documentary evidence recorded in the case that respondent was owner of the premises in question and petitioner's occupation thereof was that of her tenant. Petitioner challenged the judgment of the First Appellate Court in a second appeal before Sind High Court, but it was dismissed as the learned Judge in the High Court who dealt with the case, on independent reappraisal of the evidence upheld the finding of the Additional District Judge. It is in these circumstances that petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned Advocate‑on‑Record appearing in support of the petition submits that the High Court has erred in not appreciating the plea that there exists no reliable evidence to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. After having gone through the record of the case, we find no substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel, for, apart from' the oral evidence, a cogent documentary evidence was produced by the' respondent, particularly document exhibited as A‑2 executed by, respondent in petitioner's favour for issue of a ration card to him as being the tenant of the premises in question. Mr. Faizanul Haq admits at the bar that a ration card for petitioner's family was issued on the basis of this document. Obviously, therefore, petitioner utilized this document taking advantage of the fact that he was petitioner's tenant in respect of the premises. The First Appellate Court as well as the High Court have rightly held that in the absence of any evidence produced by the petitioner in rebuttal, respondent had successfully established that she was the owner of the demised premises and the petitioner was her tenant. There is, therefore, no merit in the plea raised by the learned counsel. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A. Leave refused.