1989SCMR1822 (PLP)
SALEH MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus Mst. FATIMA Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR1822 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | SALEH MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus Mst. FATIMA Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1822 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR1822 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1822 (PLP) (SALEH MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus Mst. FATIMA Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- K. B. Bhutto, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Anwar Ali, Advocate‑on -Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th Fabruary, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
1989. (On appeal from the judgment of the Sind High Court, dated 10‑5‑1988. in FRA 838/1986). ‑‑‑S. 15‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Question involving adjudication of title still pending in civil suit‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether petitioner should not have been dispossessed during the pendency of suit which would conclusively decide the issue of title to the property and whether Nigh Court did not properly apply the principle laid down in Supreme Court judgment in Province of Punjab v. Mufti Abdul Ghani reported as PLD 1985 SC
1. Province of Punjab v. Mufti Abdul Ghani PLD 1985 SC 1 rel.
Judgment & Decree
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑The disputed premises from which the petitioner's eviction has been ordered, was admittedly the property of one Mst. Karim and both parties arc claiming title to it by purchase. Therefore, the main controversy in this case relates to the relationship of the landlord and tenant. The respondent relied upon sale agreement dated 4th April, 1977, which was sought to be proved through attesting witnesses Haji Hussain and Ibrahim. However, the receipt allegedly executed by Mst. Karima for the sale consideration shows the name of Mst.Rahima as the recipient of the amount. The petitioner based his case on a sale agreement dated 4th April, 1978, which was in confirmation of oral sale in the year 1967. in favour of petitioner's mother. Learned Rent Controller decided the preliminary issue in favour of the, respondent landlady and ordered the ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in the payment of rent. On appeal the learned Single judge of the Sind High Court affirmed the finding and order of the Rent Controller vide judgment dated 10th May. 1988. In seeking leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel contended that the mother of the petitioner had raised a bona fide claim of ownership of the disputed premises by purchase as early as 16th December, 1982, when she filed a suit for declaration. He further submitted that the ejectment application was filed about a month prior to that. The submission of the learned counsel was that the suit of the petitioner's mother has been pending since 1982 and upon the death of his mother in October, 1988, the petitioner has been substituted as legal representative in the suit. In the light of these facts it is contended by the learned counsel that the learned Judge in the High Court did not properly apply the principle laid down in Province of Punjab v. Mufti Abdul Ghani (PLD 1985 SC 1) as according to the learned counsel the petitioner should not have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit A which would conclusively decide the issue of title to the property. The contention raised requires consideration. Leave is granted accordingly. Security Rs.5,
000. Appeal be prepared on the present record but the parties are directed to file all necessary documents for the disposal of the appeal. Stay to continue. A.A./S‑415/S Leave granted.