1985 PLP 533 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, MALAKAND and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 533 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, M. S. H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanduddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, MALAKAND and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 533 (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 533 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, M. S. H. Quraishi and Mian Burhanduddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 533 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, MALAKAND and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1984.
- Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated the 30th September 1984, passed in Writ Petition No.297 of 1982).
Arts. 185(3) & 199--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13(3)--Ejectment on ground of landlord's personal need- Order impugned --Ejectment set aside on question having little relevancy to personal need--On landlord's filing Constitutional petition, case remanded--Question of personal need referred back to appellate Court- Leave to appeal against remand order refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal is sought from the order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 30‑9‑1984, quashing the order of the District Judge and remanding the matter to him to examine the question of the personal need of the landlord. 2 The petitioner is tenant of a shop owned by Torsam Khan respondent No.3 (since dead and represented by his heirs). Torsam Khan transferred the shop in favour of his son Shamsul Haq (respondent No.4) by a partition deed. They then moved a joint application for ejectment of the petitioner on the grounds of (1) default in payment of rent and (2) personal need of Shamsul Haq and succeeded on the second ground. The District Judge who came to the view that the transfer made by the father favour of his son was a device to deprive the tenant of the shop and that accepted the appeal of the petitioner; therefore, their requirement was not in good faith for personal use. He accordingly, set aside the ejectment order. Shamsul Haq challenged the order before the High Court in writ jurisdiction, resulting in the passing of the impugned order.,,
2. A perusal of the judgment of the learned District Judge shows that he devoted himself mainly to the question of the validity of the transfer of the shop, although the transfer had little relevancy to the question of personal need. A father, even without transferring the property in favour of one of his sons, could seek ejectment or the ground of the personal need of that son. The learned District Judge, therefore, clearly misdirected himself and as such the interference made by the High Court is not without justification. In regard to the personal need, it has been submitted that Shamsul Haq himself, for whose personal need the shop was required, did not personally testify but that his attorney had appeared on his behalf. Since the question of personal need of the landlord has been referred back to the appellate Court, it is for that Court to examine the effect, if any, of non‑appearance of Shamsul Haq before the Rent Controller. Needless to add that it will be open to the appellate Court, if considered necessary to summon Shamsul Haq and examine him as a witness, With this observation the petition is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.