Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 1110 2000 SLD 1110 2000 SCMR 1960 2000 SLD 1524 2000 SCMR 1960
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.269-K of 2000, decision dated: 17-07-2000
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, 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

MUHAMMAD ARIF

VS

Mrs. ANWAR JEHAN

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

(a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--S.15---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Bona fide personal need of landlady---Concurrent findings of fact by Courts below---Landlady adduced sufficient evidence on the issue of requirement of demised premises for her personal bona fide use in good faith---Rent Controller as well as the High Court had elaborately discussed the issues in their s and had given proper findings on the same---Effect---No justification thus existed to interfere with the concurrent findings of two Courts below that the demised premises was in fact required for personal bona fide need of the landlady, her husband and her sons in good faith---Tenant having failed to point out any illegality, infirmity, misreading or non-appraisal of the evidence from the of High Court, leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Court. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVU of 1979)---- ----S.15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXX, R.4(2)---Ejectment proceedings---Applicability of provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908--­Failure to frame points for determination in ---Effect---Provision of O.XX, R.4(2), C.P.C. was not applicable to the proceedings under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Where High Court had covered every aspect of the matter and findings were recorded on all issues, such' being in accordance with law, Supreme Court declined interference. (c) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)---- ----S. 21---Appeal---Additional evidence, adducing of---Raising of new plea---Effect---Where a plea was neither raised before the Rent Controller nor in the memorandum of appeal, bringing additional evidence in that respect would amount to be a new plea---If new pleas with regard to the factual controversies were allowed to be raised at the appellate stage, same would not only open a pandora's box but would prolong litigation with no end. K.B. Bhutto, Advocate Supreme Court with Ahamdullah Faruqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th July, 2000. ORDER ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 12-1-2000, passed by a learned Single…
🔒
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