1987 PLP 580 (SCMR)
ABDUL HAMEED‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISLAM SIDDIQUI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 580 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HAMEED‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISLAM SIDDIQUI‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 580 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 580 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 580 (SCMR) (ABDUL HAMEED‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISLAM SIDDIQUI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of1979), S.16(2)‑‑Ejectment‑‑Tentative order for deposit of rent‑‑Failure to comply with‑‑Non‑reading of evidence‑‑ Ejectment on ground of default challenged‑‑Contention that rent for relevant month was paid finding support from documentary evidence on record‑‑Supreme Court being of the view that had case been examined thoroughly order of eviction would not have been passed against petitioner‑‑Leave to appeal granted. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1986. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH J.‑‑ This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 12th January, 1986 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and in result upholding the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against the petitioner for not having complied the tentative order passed by him earlier by which petitioner was directed to deposit rent in Court at the rate of Rs.125 per month. The controversy in the case relates to the question whether petitioner deposited rent for the month of November 1977, for, even according to the judgment of the High Court of Sind, if this was so, then "payment made in the subsequent months seem to be regularised." In this behalf learned Judge in the High Court who scrutinise the case noticed that the petitioner had no doubt paid rent in the sum of Rs.125 per month for the month of November, 1977 under Receipt No. 23609 but this receipt according to him related to another case between the same parties regarding another shop. Petitioner who appears in person in support of the petition referred to the Nazir's report relating to payments in respect of both the shops which show that he deposited the rent twice for the same month, namely November, 1977 on 30th November, 1977 under Receipt No. 2309 and also under Receipt No. 23608. It seems to us that had the case been examined thoroughly the original order of eviction would not have been passed against the petitioner. On this view of the case we feel that the plea raised in support of the petition deserves consideration of this Court. We therefore grant the leave appeal and allow the petition. Security Rs.5,
000. Appeal will be heard on the present record but is open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. Petitioner shall not be evicted from the demised premises till the appeal is decided subject to the condition that he shall deposit the rent in Court regularly. M.I./A‑3/S Leave granted.