1991 PLP 1307 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus HASB-UN-NISA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1307 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus HASB-UN-NISA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1307 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1307 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1307 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus HASB-UN-NISA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K. M. A. Samdani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. Saleem Sehgal, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th January, 1990.
- K. M. A. Samdani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. Saleem Sehgal, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19-9-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi in FA.O. No. 17 of 1989).
S.17(4)(b)(i)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Ejectment on ground of personal need of landlady
Question involved in petition was whether a landlady particularly an illiterate house wife could have her tenant ejected on ground that she wished to establish in premises in question a joint business with her husband or any other member of her family
Question involved in case having been answered in positive by Court in various judgments including decision of Supreme Court in Pervaiz Akhtar v. Dr. Muhammad Ahsan and others PLD 1988 SC 734 was no longer res integra
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Messrs Bombay Corporation v. Mst. Amna Begum 1986 CLC 1628 and Parvaiz Akhtar v. Dr. Muhammad Ahsan and others PLD 1988 SC 734 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Messrs Bombay Corporation v. Mst. Amna Begum 1986 CLC 1628 and Parvaiz Akhtar v. Dr. Muhammad Ahsan and others PLD 1988 SC 734 ref. K. M. A. Samdani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. Saleem Sehgal, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th January, 1990. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑The question which arises in this petition for leave to appeal is whether a landlady can have her tenant ejected under Section 17(4)(5)(i) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (X of 1963) on the ground that she wishes to establish therein a joint business with her husband or any other member of her family particularly when she is an illiterate housewife (in other words not a career woman). Mr. K. M.A. Samdani, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, has submitted that according to his research there is no authoritative pronouncement of this Court on the above question. He admits that there is a judgment of the Sindh High Court on this question namely Messrs Bombay Corporation v. Mst. Amna Begum (1986 C L C 1628) wherein it has been held that a landlady could seek the ejectment of the tenant from a commercial premises if her husband wants to use the tenanted premises or where the landlady wants to use the premises jointly with the husband but according to him this pronouncement cannot be taken to be the last word on the issue involved. We are afraid that the learned counsel's research has not been very thorough. This Court, in a recent judgment titled Parvaiz Akhtar v. Dr. Muhammad Ahsan and others PLD 1988 SC 734 has dealt with this issue and found that where, a commercial premises was needed only by one of the three co‑owners he, as one of the landlords, could take advantage of section 17(4)(b): The issue is, therefore, no longer res integra. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby. The interim order dated 11‑12‑1989, accordingly, also stands vacated. H.B.T/M‑1225/S Petition dismissed.