2001 PLP 1312 (SCMR)
FARRUKH JAMAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IQBAL AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1312 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | FARRUKH JAMAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IQBAL AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1312 (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 2001 PLP 1312 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1312 (SCMR) (FARRUKH JAMAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus IQBAL AHMAD‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 1998.
- NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑‑We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner/tenant and have also perused the record.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the. judgment dated 25‑5‑1998 of the Sindh High Court passed in F.R.A. No. 367 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑S: 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) ‑‑‑ Ejectment of tenant‑‑‑Default in monthly rent‑‑‑Bona fide personal need of landlord‑‑ Tenant during the proceedings had proved that rent of the disputed months was being deposited in the Court‑‑‑First floor of the premises was lying vacant and the landlord had purchased apartment wherein he had shifted his residence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider as to whether High Court was correct in confirming the decision of Rent Controller by holding that on the basis of the evidence on record default had been committed by the tenant and that the premises in question was required in good faith by the landlord.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑‑We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the petitioner/tenant and have also perused the record.
2. By this petition leave is sought against the impugned judgment dated 25‑5‑1998 of the Sindh High Court dismissing First Rent Appeal filed by the petitioner and affirming the judgment of the Rent Controller ordering the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question, front portion of a house in Federal B Area, Karachi, owned by the respondent/landlord.
3. Ejectment application was filed in November, 1995, on the ground of default in the payment of rent with effect from April, 1995, and also on the ground that the rented premises was required by the landlord for personal bona fide use in good faith. The issues were decided by the Rent Controller in favour of the landlord while allowing the ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in question and, as observed, the High Court has confirmed the judgment of the Rent Controller.
4. On the question of default, the evidence shows that rent of April, 1995, was deposited by the petitioner in miscellaneous rent case on 8‑5‑1995. On the question of personal requirement the respondent/ landlord in his cross‑examination admitted that he had let out the first floor of the house to another tenant and that he had filed the rent case against that tenant on the ground of personal need but then that case was compromised in June, 1996, and then the first floor of the house was vacated by the said tenant which was lying vacant. The landlord also admitted that he had advertised for the sale of the house in question. It was also admitted by the landlord that he had taken an apartment in Bath Island/Clifton and, at the time he had shifted to that apartment, the first floor of the house in question had already become vacant after its vacant possession was delivered by the previous tenant to the landlord.
5. In our view a case for grant of leave is made out. Accordingly this petition is allowed and leave is granted to consider whether the High Court was correct in confirming the decision of the Rent Controller by holding that on the basis of the evidence on record default had been committed by the petitioner/tenant and that the premises in question was required in good faith by the respondent/landlord. Q.M.H./M.A.K./F‑30/S Leave granted.