1996 PLP 1097 (SCMR)
Syed HAMID MAHMOOD GILANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL REHMAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1097 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhary and Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | Syed HAMID MAHMOOD GILANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL REHMAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1097 (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 1996 PLP 1097 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhary and Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1097 (SCMR) (Syed HAMID MAHMOOD GILANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL REHMAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahzad Akbar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Sardar Akhtar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Haji Bashir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 24th May, 1994.
- Shahzad Akbar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Sardar Akhtar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Haji Bashir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 22‑2‑1992, of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, passed in F.A.O. No. 20/1991). ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑ Dismissal of landlord's application by Rent Controller‑‑‑High Court maintaining Rent Controller's decision‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Earlier ejectment application was filed by landlord's son for his own personal use of premises‑‑‑Such application ways dismissed in default but rent of premises was raised‑‑‑Landlord himself moving application for ejectment of tenant after about three months on same ground‑ Landlord mentioned enhanced rent in his such application which fact indicated that earlier application was moved by the son of landlord with the consent of landlord‑‑‑Landlord in subsequent application failing to mention institution on first application for ejectment ‑‑‑Landlord was already running his business when his‑son had moved earlier application‑‑‑Landlord had failed to establish his bona fide need of premises in question‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 22-2-1992.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner brought an application for the ejectment of the respondent on the ground of personal bona fide need. The application was contested. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application. The learned Judge in Chambers maintained the order of the Rent Controller. It may be stated that first ejectment application was filed by son of the petitioner on the ground that he required the premises in question for his own personal use. The application for ejectment was dismissed in default, but the rent of the property was increased from Rs.400 to Rs.600 per month. After the dismissal of the first application, the petitioner moved the ejectment application after about 3 months on the same ground. It may also be mentioned that in the present application the rent of the shop in question is mentioned Rs.600, therefore, it can definitely be said that the earlier application moved by the son was with the consent of the petitioner. In the second application the petitioner did not mention the institution of the first application. The petitioner was already running a clinic when his son had moved the application for ejectment of the respondent; as such the petitioner has failed to establish his bona fide need of the shop. This petition has no substance. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused. A. A./H.216/S ` Leave refused.