1984 PLP 597 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHANI AND 4 OTHERS‑Appellants Versus Mst. SAIDA NAIM HUSSAIN‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 597 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI AND 4 OTHERS‑Appellants Versus Mst. SAIDA NAIM HUSSAIN‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 597 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 597 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 597 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHANI AND 4 OTHERS‑Appellants Versus Mst. SAIDA NAIM HUSSAIN‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmadullah Farooqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 26th January, 1984:
- According to the terms of the compromise entered into between the patties, the appellants have agreed to accept the brother of respondent No. 1, Syed Ahmed Hussain, Advocate, as their tenant of the premises in question and the respondent, Mst. Saida Naim Hussain, has agreed that her brother Syed Ahmad Hasnain may be accepted as the sole tenant of the appellants. The above‑named tenant, Syed Ahmad Hasnain, will pay a rent of Rs. 200 per month to the appellants with effect from the date of the compromise i.e. 26‑1‑1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16‑1‑1976 of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi in Appeal No. 243 of 1971). ‑‑ Art. 185‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13 & 15‑Ejectment‑Parties entering into compromise during proceedings before Supreme Court and requesting that appeal be disposed of accordingly‑Such compromise found to be just and fair disposal of dispute between parties‑Appeal allowed in terms of compromise.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16‑1‑1976 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court at Karachi, whereby he reversing the judgment of the Rent Controller, as armed by the Additional District Judge, allowed the appeal of the respondent on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenants was not established. During the course of the proceedings before us, the parties have entered into a compromise and request that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the said compromise (copy whereof has been placed on record). According to the terms of the compromise entered into between the patties, the appellants have agreed to accept the brother of respondent No. 1, Syed Ahmed Hussain, Advocate, as their tenant of the premises in question and the respondent, Mst. Saida Naim Hussain, has agreed that her brother Syed Ahmad Hasnain may be accepted as the sole tenant of the appellants. The above‑named tenant, Syed Ahmad Hasnain, will pay a rent of Rs. 200 per month to the appellants with effect from the date of the compromise i.e. 26‑1‑1984. The counsel of the respondent, Mst. Saida Naim Hussain, i.e. Syed Ahmad Hasnain, afore‑mentioned, is authorised to withdraw the rent of the premises deposited in Court by the respondent, as per lower Court's order and shall pay the said amount of rent to the appellants within one month to them. A regular lease‑deed will be executed between the appellants and Syed Ahmad Hasnain, wherein the terms and conditions agreed upon and mentioned above will be incorporated. The appellants, in view of the above compromise, agree to withdraw the present appeal. This compromise, entered between the parties, appears to us to be a just and fair disposal of the dispute between the parties. We, accordingly, are inclined to accept it and do hereby allow this appeal in terms of the com promise mentioned above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.Z. M. Appeal accepted.