| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 1116 2002 SLD 1116 2002 SCMR 168 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 569-K of 2000, decision dated: 23rd December, 2000, hearing DATE : 22-12-2000.(On appeal from the judgment dated 29-11-2000 of High Court of Sindh in F.R.A. No. 140 of 1994)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Abdul Rahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Civil Petition No. 569-K of 2000, decision dated: 23rd December, 2000, hearing DATE : 22-12-2000.(On appeal from the judgment dated 29-11-2000 of High Court of Sindh in F.R.A. No. 140 of 1994)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Abdul Rahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
ABDUL RASHID
VS
BABOO through Legal Heirs
Law:
Section:
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVH of 1979)----S. 15(2)(vii)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Admissions of tenant in cross-examination-- Rent Controller allowed eviction application filed by landlord and the order of eviction was maintained by High Court---Contention of the tenant was that the application filed by the landlord was based on mala fides ---Validity--Plea raised by the tenant was rightly turned down by the Rent Controller--Admissions of the tenant in cross-examination were enough to prove the bona fide personal need of the landlord---Concurrent findings of Rent Controller and High Court were perfectly correct, and not open to any exception---Leave to appeal was refused. JUDGMENT NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---Petitioner, Abdul Rashid has impugned judgment dated 29-11-2000, of a learned Judge in Chamber, High Court of Sindh whereby his F. R. A. No. 140 of 1994 was dismissed. 2. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents namely Baboo had filed eviction application in year 1991 against the petitioner for his eviction from shop No.3 constructed on Plot No.129, Blocks 7 and 8, C.P. Hear Society, Karachi, hereinafter referred to as "the Premises", on the ground of personal need. Respondents are legal heirs of deceased Baboo; respondent No. l is his wife; respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are his sons and respondents Nos. 5 to 8 daughters. It is case of respondents that the premises is required for respondent No.2. 3. The case of the petitioner is that prior to this case viz..No.334 of 1991, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had filed Rent Cases i.e. 449 of 1986 and 162 of 1989, which were either dismissed or withdrawn. Main plea of the petitioner, is that the respondents want to enhance rent and that the eviction application is mala fide. 4. Learned Rent Controller in detail scrutinized the evidence brought on record and reached conclusion that the premises were required by the respondents in good faith. Accordingly, he allowed the eviction application. 5. Above: order was challenged before High Court, but without any success. Learned High Court agreed with the findings of Rent Controller…
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