1983 PLP 1058 (SCMR)
SULEMAN GHAZI-Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1058 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SULEMAN GHAZI-Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1058 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1058 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1058 (SCMR) (SULEMAN GHAZI-Petitioner Versus GHULAM HAIDER AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghauri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Khalid Ishaq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 15th August, 1983.
- Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghauri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Khalid Ishaq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Nizam Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court, dated 8-5-1983 passed in F. R. A. No. 655 of 1981).
Art. 185 (3)-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13-Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 15-Landlord filing application for ejectment of tenant before Rent Controller for non-payment of rent under S. 13 of Ordinance, 1959 Pending application with Rent Controller, landlord filing another application before Rent Controller under S. 15, Ordinance 1979 on ground of personal requirement-Rent Controller as well as High Court finding landlord's personal requirement to be genuine there being enough evidence with regard to personal requirement of premises by landlord which was not successfully refuted by tenant-Landlord living in house of his father and he was not shown to be in possession of suitable building for his need in same urban area as property in question- Petition for leave to appeal dismissed having no merits for interference.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑Leave is sought to appeal against the judgment of the Sind High Court, dated 8‑9‑1983 passed in the First Rent Appeal No. 655 of 1981.
2. The petitioner was the tenant of the respondents in Bungalow No. 61, Kathiawar Co‑operative Housing Society Limited, Blocks Nos. 6 and 8, Karachi, at a rent of Rs. 4,000 per month. His ejectment was sought by the respondents under section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (West Pakistan Ordinance VI) of 1959 for non‑payment of rent from 1‑5‑1979, amounting to Rs. 12,
000. The petition was contested by the petitioner. During the pendency of the ejectment application, the res pondents, however, filed another petition under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 which came into force in November, 1979, 'on the ground of personal requirement. This petition was also con tested by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller, by his order dated 19‑11‑1981, held that the disputed premises was required by the res pondents in good faith for their personal bona fide occupation. Dissatisfied with the order of the learned Rent Controller the petitioner filed an appeal in the Sind High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents had filed Rent Case No, 3086/1979 mala fide and in law they could not file another rent case on the same ground during the pendency of the earlier case, merely by adding another ground of personal bona fide require ment which, on their showing, was subsisting on the date of the first rent case.
4. We have gone through the impugned judgment and find that the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that there is enough evidence with regard to the personal requirement of the premises by the respondent which was not successfully refuted by the petitioner. It is in the evidence that the two respondents were living in the house of their father and they were not shown to be in possession of a suitable building for their need in the same urban area as the property in question. Thus, we find no merit in this) petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the order of ejectment will not be executed for a period of four months from today provided the petitioner continues to pay the monthly rent. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed