1987 PLP 2051 (SCMR)
Mrs. SHAHNOOR FAZAL‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM AKBAR MANGI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 2051 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C.J. Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Mrs. SHAHNOOR FAZAL‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM AKBAR MANGI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 2051 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 2051 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C.J. Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 2051 (SCMR) (Mrs. SHAHNOOR FAZAL‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM AKBAR MANGI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 19‑2‑1984 passed by the High Court of Sind in First Rent Appeal No. 851 of 1982). ‑‑‑Ss. 14 & 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Ejectment on ground of personal requirement of premises by landlady‑‑Order of ejectment made by Rent Controller set aside by High Court‑‑Petitioner's counsel unable to convince Court as to how in absence of a specific pleading as to vacant premises not being sufficient for her needs she could seek ejectment of respondent from the disputed premises‑‑Order of High Court, held, was unexceptionable‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑ Leave to appeal is sought against the order of the High Court, dated 19th February, 1984, by which First Rent Appeal No. 851 of 1982, was allowed and the ejectment application was dismissed. The order is challenged on the ground that the disputed premises was required in good faith for the residence of the petitioner whose husband had been promoted as Vice‑President of the United Bank, and, accordingly, was not entitled to an official residence. The Rent Controller accepted the ground and ordered the ejectment of the respondent holding 'that whenever the disputed flat will be vacated then the applicant will shift to his own accommodation after joining both the flats together'. This was not the case of the petitioner in her application for ejectment nor in the affidavit filed by her husband who was her attorney, and it was only in his cross‑examination that the need for this disputed premises was stated in the manner in which the Rent Controller has accepted it. If at all, the flat lying vacant was not suitable for her needs it was then necessary that she should have made out a case that the flat which was lying vacant was not sufficient for her needs and that it was for that reason that the disputed flat was needed by her. This was a legal requirement which had to be pleaded and proved. Not having done so, it was not open to the Rent Controller to take notice of what transpired in the evidence. The High Court took note of this deficiency and rightly held that in the absence of such a pleading it cannot be said that the disputed premises was required in good faith. Accordingly, it reversed the conclusion of the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to convince us as to how in the absence of a specific pleading as to the vacant premises not being sufficient for her needs she could seek ejectment of the respondent from the disputed premises. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is unexceptionable. The petition is thus without any merit and dismissed. S. Q./M‑218/S Petition dismissed.