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. 207‑K of 1986, decided on 28th August, 1986.
(From Judgment/order of the Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 20‑2‑1986 passed in First Rent Appeal No. 110 of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15‑ Nuisance‑‑Petitioner tenant dealing in poultry business contending that when entire locality became a business area where every type of eatables were being sold including poultry which was slaughtered after purchase by customers at their instance in street by persons available for such job‑‑Act of petitioner alone could not have been picked up for having created nuisance for inhabitants‑‑Question raised in petition requiring examination‑‑Leave granted.
St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865) 11 H L C 642=2 E R 642 and Bihari Lal v. James Maclean and others (1924) 46 All. L R 297 ref.
Mirza Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th August, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought form judgment, dated 20th February, 1986 of the Sind High Court; whereby the petitioner‑tenant's appeal against orders of his eviction from a shop, was dismissed.
The petitioner runs a poultry business in the shop, While the respondent‑landlord's plea is that the cages full of live poultry are placed in and around the shop, the petitioner's case was that he used the shop as his office and the cages were placed on the footpath. The respondent's further allegation against the petitioner was that the bad smell of poultry; as also, the rubbish and filth which was the by‑product of the poultry business on account of slaughtering the same in front of the shop (not disposed of by the petitioner in proper manner and it was thrown around the shop) caused serious nuisance to the inhabitants of the building. As against this the petitioner's reply was that his was not the only poultry selling shop; there were several others in the same street which had become a full‑fledged Bazar on account of several shops including those selling vegetable, meat and fish. He denied the allegation with regard to the slaughtering of the poultry. According to him it was done by other persons who were available on hire in the street. And that it was further pleaded by him that there was no filth or rubbish. It was kept in proper containers.
The question of nuisance has been discussed in the impugned detailed judgment with reference to case‑law for and against the proposition as to whether in the circumstances of this case the petitioner was guilty of nuisance so as to be liable to be evicted on this ground.
Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that when a whole locality becomes a business area the addition of one or other shops would not amount to nuisance for residents of the locality. In other words, the plea is that when the entire locality has become a business area where every type of eatables are being sold including the poultry which is slaughtered after purchase by the customers at their instance in the street by persons available for doing this act the petitioner alone could not have been picked up for having created nuisance for the inhabitants. He has relied in this behalf in particular on cases from foreign jurisdiction‑‑St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping 1865 XI H.L.C., 642= 2, English Report 642 and, Bihari Lal v. James Maclean and others (1924) 46 All. L R 297.
After hearing the learned counsel, we consider it a fit case to examine the questions raised in this petition. Accordingly leave to appeal is granted.
Security Rs.2,500.
Stay granted on 26‑6‑1986 shall continue in operation till the decision of the appeal.
M. Y. H. Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer