1987 PLP 1488 (SCMR)
Dr. ABDUL RAHMAN GORA‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ASYA SULTANA‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1488 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. ABDUL RAHMAN GORA‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ASYA SULTANA‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1488 (SCMR)?
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 1987 PLP 1488 (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 1488 (SCMR) (Dr. ABDUL RAHMAN GORA‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ASYA SULTANA‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Azhar Ali Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Muzaffar Hassan Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 14, 15 & 21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑ Ejectment proceedings‑‑High Court dismissing petitioner's appeal and upholding order of Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from demised premises on ground that respondent‑landlady had satisfactorily proved that she required the premises for her bona fide personal use‑‑No exception in law or on facts, held, could be legitimately taken against the view that had prevailed in the High Court‑‑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 2‑6‑1986 dismissing petitioner's appeal and in result upholding the order of the Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that respondent‑landlady had satisfactorily proved that she required the premises for her bona fide personal use. The High Court noticed that it is an admitted position that "there are six members of the family (of the landlady)" and in the view of the High Court "they at least require one room each". The accommodation available with the landlady was held to be insufficient and on the facts proved on record it was also held that "the need (of the landlady) is bona fide". After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the record we find that no exception in law or on facts can be legitimately taken against the view that has prevailed in the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.Q./A‑60/S Leave refused.