1987 PLP 1614 (SCMR)
Hakim GULSHER MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1614 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | Hakim GULSHER MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1614 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1614 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S. A. Nusrat 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 1614 (SCMR) (Hakim GULSHER MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 14th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Sind High Court, Karachi, in F.R.A. No.108/83, dated 20‑4‑1986). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21‑‑Re‑appraisal of evidence‑‑Concurrent finding on question of fact‑‑Ejectment‑‑Bona fide personal need of landlord‑‑High Court, on re‑appraisal of evidence, confirming finding of fact reached by Rent Controller on basis of correct appreciation of evidence‑‑No scope for interference having been found with concurrent findings of fact which were rooted in evidence, leave to appeal refused. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court dated 20‑4‑1986 dismissing petitioner's appeal and thereby upholding the order of the Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground 'that respondent‑landlord bona fide required the same for personal use. We find that the High Court on re‑appraisal of the case confirmed the finding of the fact reached by the Rent Controller on the basis of correct appreciation of evidence. There is therefore no scope for interference by this Court in view of the concurrent findings of fact which are rooted in evidence that the respondent‑landlord bona fide requires the premises for his personal use. The petition is dismissed. M.I/G‑34/8 Petition dismissed.