Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 26‑K of 1985, decided on 2nd May, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 5‑11-1984 passed in First Rent Appeal No. 552 of 1983).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑ Findings of fact reached by High Court being in consonance with well -settled principles of appreciation of evidence and not suffering from any legal infirmity, same, held, not open to interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Abdus Sattar, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1985.
This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 5‑11‑1984 reversing the order of the Rent Controller, Karachi and directing petitioner's eviction from the demised shop. By that judgment, learned Judge in the High Court upheld the plea of respondent landlords that the demised shop is bona fide required for their personal use.
2. The shop was originally let out to Syed Shabbir Ali, the predecessor‑in‑title of the respondents, and after his death; respondents sought petitioner's eviction on the ground that Syed Saleem Ali son of Syed Shabbir Ali, respondent No.2, requires the shop for personal use to carry on his business. The Rent Controller was not convinced with this plea and rejected the application for eviction, but on appeal, learned Judge in the High Court held that the order of the Rent Controller could not be sustained in law and also on facts. The relevant observations made by him in the judgment read as follows:‑‑
"The evidence shows that the original landlord had died in 1974 leaving behind one widow and four minor children. Then at the time of filing the present appeal only one of the children was a major and the other three were minors. The eldest son was selling bananas on a "thela" to earn his livelihood and to maintain other members of his family including his widow and three minor sisters and brothers. After having become a major and having saved some money, the appellant No.2 wanted to start a grocery business in the shop in question, Evidence has further established that apart from this property, no other property is owned by the appellants. In my view, an objective assessment of the evidence leads to the conclusion that a case for personal requirement in good faith by the appellants had been established."
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition, we find no justification for interference as the findings of fact reached by the learned Judge in the High Court are in consonance with well‑settled principles of appreciation of evidence and these do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer