Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 934 1984 SLD 934 1984 SCMR 1390
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-228 of 1982, decision dated: 8-09-1982 (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind, Karachi, dated 13-6-1982 in F. R . A . No. 203 of 1981)
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND M.S.H. QURAISHI, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Messrs COLONY TEXTILE MILLS, Ltd.

VS

. REHMATULLAH---Respondent

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art.185(3)--Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15(2)--Ejectment on ground of personal requirement of landlord--Courts below accepting case of landlord concurrently that he required premises genuinely for accommodating his family members--Submission raising question of facts standing concluded by findings recorded by Court of first instance and affirmed by Court of appeal--No evidence on record to show that plea of landlord was motivated by ulterior object--Leave to appeal refused. Abdul Majeed Khan, Advocate and Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. ORDER ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-- This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sind, dated 13-6-1982, upholding the order of ejectment of the petitioner-­company from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal requirement of the respondent-landlord. 2. Originally the landlord had urged the ground: of default in payment of rent as well in support of his petition for ejectment but that question is no longer in issue as it was found by the Rent Controller that the petitioner had deposited the rent regularly in his office. 3. The Courts below have accepted the case of the landlord concur­rently, that he requires the premises genuinely for accommodating his family members as the premises in his occupation presently, were inadequate for their requirements. The landlord was found to have proved by his evidence that he has three sons, two daughters and one married son alongwith his family who were required to be accommodated, alongwith the landlord in the disputed premises. Further, the marriages of the two sons were also held up for want of proper accommodation. In these circumstances both Courts below found that the accommodation presently occupied by the family consisting of two bed rooms was not sufficient for…
🔒
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