1992 PLP 840 (SCMR)
ABDUL HALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UMER HAJI ABDULLAH through Legal Heir and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 840 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Shafiur Rahman, J |
| Parties | ABDUL HALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UMER HAJI ABDULLAH through Legal Heir and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 840 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 840 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Shafiur Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 840 (SCMR) (ABDUL HALEEM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UMER HAJI ABDULLAH through Legal Heir and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 13th December, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 19‑8‑1990 passed in First Rent Appeal No.158 of 1986). ‑‑‑‑S.15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Ejectment of tenant declined by all the Courts below‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Landlord's contention was that tenant had admitted unconditionally that he had executed the document wherein two important admissions were made by him; admitting ownership of landlord and surrendering of his tenancy rights and that such categorical unequivocal admission by tenant had been altogether ignored by both the Courts and instead decision had been given only on the basis of oral evidence which was not credit worthy and was contradictory‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention raised by landlord. Nemo of Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑This petition by the landlord is directed against a concurrent rejection of his claim seeking eviction of the tenant Umer Haji Abdullah and his assignees on the ground of default, subletting and damage to the property.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tenant/respondent No.1 admitted unconditionally that he had executed the document marked `L' on 16th of March, 1972 wherein two important admissions were made as hereunder:‑‑-- "(i) AND WHEREAS the shop premises in which the said Running Restaurant Business is being carried on, belongs to the landlord Abdul Halim son of Ghulam Muhammad and is situated on Plot No. L.Y.13/188 and the seller is the monthly tenant of the said landlord in respect of the said shop premises. (ii) That the seller hereby gives up, waives and surrenders the tenancy rights in respect of the said shop premises in which the said Running Restaurant Business is being carried on, in favour of the purchasers, and the purchasers shall henceforth be fully entitled to get the tenancy rights in respect of the said shop premises transferred in their own names at their own costs and expenses but the seller shall not, in any case, be responsible for getting the tenancy rights in respect of the said shop premises transferred in the names of the purchasers."
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that such a categorical unequivocal admission by the tenant has been altogether ignored by both the Courts and instead a decision has been given only on the basis of oral evidence which was not creditworthy and was contradictory.
4. Leave to appeal is granted.
5. Security Rs.5,
000. A.A./A‑877/S Leave granted.