Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑84 of 1984, decided on 7th June, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 8‑12‑1983 of High Court of Sind, Karachi in First Appeal No. 716 of 1980).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), Ss. 13(5‑B) & 15‑‑Ejectment‑‑Premises bona fide required for reconstruction‑‑High Court reversing order of ejectment on ground that respondent being tenant of a shop located in Commercial building and proposed new building being for residential purposes, benefit under S.13(5‑B) was not available to him and landlord therefore was not entitled to evict tenant‑‑Order impugned‑‑High Court's view being different from/in conflict with, principle laid down by Supreme Court, and point raised" being of general legal importance likely to affect a number of cases, leave to appeal granted.
Abdul Hadi alias Abdul Hadi Hasan and 2 others v. Syed Ali Haider and others P L D 1983 S C 342; Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussain P L D 1978 S C 78 and Zoab v. Akbar Ali 1983 S C M R 391 ref.
Badrudduja Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Naseem Farooqui, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A.I. Qarni, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 7th June, 1984.
The Rent Controller Karachi allowed petitioners' application for respondent's eviction on the ground that they had successfully proved that the demised premises were required by them bona fide for reconstruction of the building. On appeal by the respondent, High Court set aside the order of the Rent Controller on the ground that since respondent was a tenant of a shop located in a Commercial building, and in the proposed new building which was for residential purposes, the benefit available to him under section 13 (5B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was not available to him, petitioners were not entitled to evict him.
2. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court submits that the view taken by .the learned Judges in the High Court is in conflict with the principle laid down by this Court in Abdul Hadi alias Abdul Hadi Hasan and two others v., Syed Ali Haider and others P L D 1983 S C 342 and Abdul Bari v. Khadim Hussain PLD 1978 S C 78. We find that in the case of Zoab v. Akbar Ali 1983 SCMR 391, this Court has taken somewhat different view. Since the point raised by the learned counsel is of general legal importance and is likely to affect a large number of cases. We grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Security Rs. 2,000.
3. Appeal to be heard on the present record. It is, however, open to the parties to file additional documents.
4. It is only appropriate that this appeal should be heard by a Bench of not less than five Judges in order to render .an authoritative decision.
M. I. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer