1970 PLP 879 (SCMR)
MANU MIAH-Petitioner Versus MD. ISHAQUE MIAH-Respondent
| Citation | 1970 PLP 879 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MANU MIAH-Petitioner Versus MD. ISHAQUE MIAH-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 879 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 879 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 879 (SCMR) (MANU MIAH-Petitioner Versus MD. ISHAQUE MIAH-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mohammad A. Aziz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 15th June 1970.
- Mohammad A. Aziz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 21st October 1969, in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 499 of 1968).
S. 106-Notice- Ejectment-N9tice for determination of tenancy sent by registered post, acknowledgement due, and duly served by postman-Evidence of postman accepted by two lower appellate Courts and all Courts below finding tenant a defaulter-Petition for leave to appeal dismissed-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3).
Judgment & Decree
M. R. KHAN, J.‑The petitioner was a monthly tenant under the respondent in respect of certain premises under the Double moorings Police Station in the district of Chittagong. The premises was governed by the Transfer of the Property Act and the Premises Rent Control Ordinance. The tenancy was determined by a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the ground that the petitioner was a defaulter. After the determination of the tenancy by notice, the respondent brought a suit for ejectment of the petitioner. The points that arose for consideration in the suit were whether the tenancy was duly determined by notice and whether the petitioner was defaulter. The trial Court found the petitioner to be a defaulter, but held that no notice to quit was duly served on the petitioner. Accordingly, the trial Court granted a decree for arrear of rent, but refused the prayer for ejectment. On appeal, the first appellate Court held that the petitioner was a defaulter and that the tenancy was duly determined by a valid notice. Accordingly, a decree for ejectment was passed by that Court. On second appeal by the petitioner, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of East Pakistan agreed with the findings of the first appellate Court and, accordingly, affirmed the decree for ejectment. The petition for special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court. The points agitated in the High Court have been raised in the petition. It appears that the notice for determination of the tenancy was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due and that it was duly served by the postal‑peon. The evidence of the postal‑peon in this regard was accepted by the High Court and the first appellate Court. All the‑ Courts below have found the petitioner to be a defaulter. Thus, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.