| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3140 = 1980 SLD 3140 = 1980 SCMR 384 |
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-277 of 1979 decided on 15th January 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 17-9-1979 in 11 Appeal No. 141 of 1973).
Presented By: Dorab Patel, Muhammad Haleem and Aslam Riaz Hussain, JJ
Mohsin Tayebaly, Advocate and M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on- Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
KUTYANA MEMON ASSOCIATION-Petitioner
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD ZAFAR NABI KHAN-Respondent
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Law: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959.
Section: 13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185 (3) read with West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13-High Court and first appellate Court, upon appraisal of statement (of landlord) and attending circum stances, concurrently holding that landlord's requirement was genuine-No reason shown to disturb such, finding: Date of hearing :15th January, 1980. ORDER MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J,-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 17th of September, 1979, by which Second Appeal No. 141 of 1973 was dismissed. Upon transfer of the property bearing No. 1-A-763, O, T. 8/-54-55, G2, G3 and G4 by the settlement authorities to the respondent, he served notice on the petitioner under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, for the payment of rent to him which was settled at Rs. 100 p. m. In March, 1968, he filed an ejectment application on the ground that as he had been retired compulsorily from service and his income from service in Liaquat Medical Hospital was not sufficient to meet his "growing liabilities", he wanted to start his own business and for this purpose he required the possession of the shops. By order dated 24th of March, 1972, the Rent Controller dismissed the application principally on the ground that the evidence of the petitioner had gone unchallenged as he was not cross-examined by the respondent who was absent on that date. In first appeal this conclusion was reversed as the appellate Court felt that there was no reason to disbelieve the respondent on the question of his need as he was without a job and to earn his livelihood, he wanted to install a printing press in the disputed shops with the assistance of his brother who had a…