Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1255 2018 SLD 1255 2018 CLC 940
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petitions Nos. S-1260, 1262 and 1263 of 2017, decided on 13-2-2018. Date of hearing: 20-12-2017.
MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, JUSTICE
Abdul Hameed Bhopali and Ms. Tabassum Hashmat for Petitioners. Arif Khan for
Respondent No.3.

MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND ANOTHER

VS

XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15---Ejecment application--- Appearance of landlady through attorney--- Scope--- Personal bona fide need of landlady---Scope---Petitioner/tenant contended that personal bonafide need of landlady could not be proved through attorney and she did not require the rented premises/shop for herself---Landlady contended that she needed rented premises for her son and Appellate Court had rightly passed eviction order---Validity---If landlady instead of examining for herself, examined her attorney in support of her case, it would not affect the case in any manner---Attorney, in the present case, was son of landlady who adduced confidence inspiring evidence which could not be shattered during cross-examination which was sufficient to prove the case of landlady regarding personal bonafide need---Even solitary statement of the landlady (or landlord through lawful attorney) would be sufficient to discharge the burden of proof, if such statement was consistent to the pleadings, steady and supported by the surrounding circumstances---If appearance through attorney was declined to a party who was residing abroad or incapacitated or pardanasheen same would cause great hardship to the party---Non-appearance of landlady, in the present case, was not fatal to her case---Attorney of landlady, who was her son, had categorically stated that he was working at some other shop and wanted to start his own business in the subject property/shop, therefore, findings of first appellate court was based on logical reason---High Court observed that evidence brought on record by the landlady could not be shattered in cross-examination so the same could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction---No illegality or infirmity having been noticed in the impugned s passed by Appellate Court, Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Mst. Jehan Ara through Attorney v. Raja Zafarullah Janjua PLD 2003 SC 277 and Shakeel Ahmed and another v. Muhammad Tariq Farogh and others 2010 SCMR 1925 ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MRS. ASHRAF JAHAN, J.--- The present constitutional petitions are directed against the Judgments dated 19.05.2017,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492