1986 PLP 1860 (SCMR)
WAHEED AHMED SHAHEED — Petitioner Versus FARID ASHRAF — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1860 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J., S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | WAHEED AHMED SHAHEED — Petitioner Versus FARID ASHRAF — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1860 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1860 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J., S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1860 (SCMR) (WAHEED AHMED SHAHEED — Petitioner Versus FARID ASHRAF — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.K.M. Idris, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th August, 1986.
- A.K.M. Idris, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 25-5-1986, passed in First Rent Appeal No. 913 of 1983).
Art. 185(3)--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21- Finding of fact--Interference with--Ejectment on ground of bona fide personal requirement and conversion of premises into a motor workshop- Findings of Rent Controller on both grounds, set aside by High Court-- Supreme Court being of view that finding of fact was 4nterfered with on reasoning which did not appear to be in accord with evidence--Leave to appeal granted.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioner applied for the ejectment of the respondent from the disputed premises on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement and conversion of the premises into a motor workshop. The ejectment application was allowed by the Rent Controller on both the grounds by his order, dated 7‑11‑1983. The respondent's appeal was allowed by the learned High Court as per impugned judgment and the finding of the Rent Controller was set aside on both the grounds. 2. After going through the impugned judgment of the learned High Court, we find that the findings of fact have been interfered with by the learned High Court on reasoning which does not appear to be in accord with the evidence. Leave to appeal is accordingly granted. Security Rs.1,000. The appeal will be heard or the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if any. As the point involved is short, the appeal may be fixed at an early date. M.I. Leave granted.