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. 83‑K of 1986, decided on 26th August, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi dated 17‑11‑1985 passed in Second Appeal No. 65 of 1982).
-‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance ,(XVII of 1979), S.15‑ Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Ejectment of petitioner tenant ordered by High Court‑‑Each and every aspect of case having been well‑considered by High Court and findings in case being purely one of fact and no question of law arising in matter, leave refused.
Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 26th August, 1986.
‑According to the office note this petition is barred by 9 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the certified copy of the impugned judgment from which it appears that copy was made ready on 24‑12‑1985. The figure "24" appears to have been read by office as "14" on the basis of an endorsement at the bottom of the copy under the signature of some person. In the circumstances, the petition is within time.
2. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent in respect of a shop premises situate in Sadder Co‑operative Market, Abdullah Haroon Road, Karachi. The respondent applied for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent for 13 months and personal requirement. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller on both the grounds. This order was however, set aside by the learned Additional District Judge on First Appeal. This led to the filing of a Second Appeal in the High Court by the respondent/landlord where he succeeded and the order of the Rent Controller was restored.
3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of Rent Controller, which was restored by the High Court, was vague in discussion of the evidence and the ground of personal need was also not proved. We have gone through the impugned judgment and find that each and every aspect of the case has been well considered particularly so as the matter was brought in Second Appeal and findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court were sought to be set aside. The findings in the case are purely one of fact and no question of law arises in the matter. 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