1985 PLP 1584 (SCMR)
GUL MEHAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus Syed AKRAM ALI — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1584 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | GUL MEHAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus Syed AKRAM ALI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1584 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1584 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Nasim Hasan Shah, Abdul Kadir Shaikh and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1584 (SCMR) (GUL MEHAR KHAN — Petitioner Versus Syed AKRAM ALI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gul Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th September, 1984.
- Gul Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 185 (3)--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, (XVII of 1979), S.15(2)--Ejectment--Existence of relationship of landlord and tenant decided by Rent Controller on basis of evidence recorded in case--Plea that dispute relating to title of property should have been left to Civil Court to decide, repelled--High Court on re-appraisal of evidence upholding finding of fact proved on record--Findings being rooted in evidence 'not open to interference--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 25‑3‑1984 whereby petitioner's appeal was dismissed and the order of the Rent Controller, dated 31‑10‑1983 directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises was confirmed. The Rent Controller passed that order on being satisfied with respondent‑landlord's plea that petitioner, his tenant, was defaulter in payment of rent and he also bona fide required the premises for himself and his family consisting of 15 members. Petitioner raised the plea that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties but it was rejected by the Rent Controller on the basis of evidence recorded in the case. Mr. Gul Zaman Khan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the High Court has not appreciated petitioner's plea that he, and not the respondent, is the owner of the premises and since the dispute related to the title of the property it should have been left to the civil Court to decide the controversy. Learned counsel further submits that the findings of the High Court on the other issues involved in the case are also erroneous. We find that the High Court on re‑appraisal of the evidence recorded in the case has geld as a finding of fact that petitioner is the tenant of the respondent and 'that respondent's assertion that he bona fide requires the premises for himself and his family stands proved on record. Since these findings are rooted in evidence, there is no scope for this Court to interfere. The petition is dismissed. M.I Petition dismissed.