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 for Leave to Appeal No. 521‑K of 1984, decided on 16th February, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of High Court of Sind, Hyderabad, dated 27‑9‑1984 in IInd Appeal No. 31 of 1983).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), Ss.15 21‑‑Eviction‑‑Default in payment of Rent‑‑No fault found with impugned judgment of High Court dismissing petitioner tenant's second appeal as no error of law or fact was committed by first appellate Court to justify interference by High Court in second appeal‑Leave to appeal refused.
Abdul Hafeez Memon, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Ali Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
S.A. Jamali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Anwar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 16th February. 1986.
‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Sind High Court, dated 27‑8‑1984 dismissing a second appeal filed by the petitioner and thus upholding the judgment of the first appellate Court, dated 8‑8‑1983 were by petitioner was directed to handover vacant possession of the demised premises to respondent landlady.
Facts of the case briefly stated are that respondent applied for petitioner's eviction from the demised premises on the ground that he was a defaulter in payment of rent from October to December, 1977. The Rent Controller accepted respondent's plea that petitioner was a defaulter but did not pass an order of eviction against him for the reason that the petitioner, in his view, was not a wilful defaulter. For these reasons respondent's application was dismissed. On respondent's appeal, the first appellate Court reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and directed petitioner's eviction from the demised premises for the reason that petitioner having made clear defaults in payment of rent was not entitled to discretion in his favour. Petitioner then filed a second appeal in the High Court but it was dismissed as the learned Judge in the High Court who dealt with the case took the view that no illegality or material irregularity was committed by the first appellate Court.
After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the record before us we cannot find any fault with the judgment of the High Court dismissing petitioner's second appeal as no error of law or fact was committed by the first appellate Court to justify interference by the High Court in a second appeal.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer