Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BAKAR VS Respondent: KHATOON HAJIN KALA ALIAS KALA BEGUM
1988 S C M R 677
1988 S C M R 677
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
BAKAR‑‑Petitioner
versus
Mst.KHATOON HAJIN KALA alias KALA BEGUM‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.266‑K of 1987, decided on 31st August, 1987.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24‑5‑1987 of the Sind High Court, Karachi in F.R.A. No.511 of 1987).
(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑
‑‑‑S.14‑‑Widow's ejectment application‑‑Petitioner tenant directed to hand over vacant possession of two shops in his occupation to widow landlady‑‑Respondent having become widow before filing of ejectment petition and not owning or possessing any other shop, ejectment order upheld.
(b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss.14 & 21‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Findings of fact‑‑Widow's ejectment application, granted‑‑No error of law or mistake in appraisal of evidence on record necessitating further scrutiny pointed out‑‑Matter having concluded by findings of fact, which suffered from no infirmity, leave to appeal refused.
Ali Murtaza Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 31st August, 1987.
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of ejectment passed by the IVth Rent Controller (West), Karachi, whereby he directed him to handover vacant possession of two shops in his occupation to the respondent herein. The respondent was the owner and landlord of the two shops aforementioned. She had applied to the Rent Controller for possession of the said shops by ejecting the tenant after the death of her husband, as his widow, alleging that she did not own or possess any other shop.
Both the Rent Controller and the High Court on appeal have found that the respondent had indeed become a widow before filing of the ejectment application and that she did not own or possess any shops other than the two shops aforesaid, which were given on rent to the petitioner. Accordingly the ejectment application was accepted and the tenant (petitioner herein) was ordered to be ejected. By this petition, the above‑mentioned determinations of the Courts below are questioned before us.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has not been able to show any error of law or point out any mistake in the appraisal of the evidence on record, necessitating further scrutiny in the matter. The matter stands concluded by findings of fact, which suffer from no infirmity.
M. I./B‑36/S Petition dismissed.