Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ براہ راست قابل اعتماد وکیل تک رسائی
ابھی وکیل سے بات کرنی ہے؟

صرف 1000 روپے میں 10 وکلاء تک کی براہِ راست رابطہ تفصیلات حاصل کریں اور کال یا واٹس ایپ کے ذریعے موزوں قانونی ماہر سے رابطہ کر کے اپنا معاملہ پورے اعتماد کے ساتھ آگے بڑھائیں۔

☎ فون اور واٹس ایپ تک رسائی ⚖ تصدیق شدہ وکلاء ڈائریکٹری 🔒 محفوظ ادائیگی
⚡ صرف 1000 روپے میں 10 وکلاء سے رابطہ کریں
ایک بار ادائیگی کریں۔ اپنی قانونی ضرورت کے مطابق وکلاء کے رابطہ نمبرز کھولیں۔

DILLAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH versus RAZIA SULTANA


Article 2 (185 ()) of the Sindh Rated Premises Ordinance (1979), Section XVII), finding of the Section 21 High Court, calls for an interference argument in support of a request for verification of evidence from the root of the evidence in this case. Was not appealed, refused to appeal
1986 S C M R 1655

Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A. Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ

DILLAWAR HUSSAIN SHAH‑‑Petitioner

versus

Mst. RAZIA SULTANA‑‑Respondent

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 118‑K of 1986, decided on 16th June, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind Karachi, dated 24‑11‑1985 in F.R.A. No. 1232/82).

Constitution oaf Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.21‑ Finding of High Court, rooted in evidence recorded in case, not calling for interference‑‑Argument in support of petition amounting to a request for reappraisal of evidence, held, could not be granted‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Abul Khair, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 16th June, 1986.

ORDER

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑

This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 24‑11‑1985 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner and thereby upholding order of the Rent Controller directing petitioner's eviction from the demised premises. Learned Rent Controller passed that order on being satisfied from the evidence recorded in the case that the respondent‑landlady required the premises for her personal use and the petitioner was also defaulter in payment of rent.

The arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing in support of the petitioner rarely amount to a request for re‑appraisal. Of the evidence which obviously cannot be granted. Even otherwise, the findings of the High Court being rooted in the evidence recorded in the case do not call for interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
family advocate from Narowal lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP وکلاء ڈائریکٹری

پاکستان کا لیگل ٹیکنالوجی پلیٹ فارم اور تصدیق شدہ وکلاء ڈائریکٹری جو کلائنٹس، وکلاء، لاء فرمز اور بار ایسوسی ایشنز کو آپس میں جوڑتا ہے۔

رابطہ کریں

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. جملہ حقوق محفوظ ہیں۔