Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Muhammad Saleem vs Muhammad Ismail And Another1987 PCr. L.J 1633 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Kazi Muhammad Hasnain1987 MLD 3267 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Abdul Habib1987 CLC 682 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salahuddin vs Mst. Rukhsana Saeed and 2 others1987 CLC 163 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Said vs Jalil Ahmed1987 MLD 909 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Jamaluddin Siddiqui1987 MLD 2133 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Anver Majeed And Another1987 P Cr. L J 165 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sabir vs Jehangir1987 MLD 872 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Federal Construction Corporation Limited and 41987 CLC 345 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-17
  agency coupled with interestinterim injunctiontermination of agencyirrevocable power of attorneybalance of conveniencearbitration clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from terminating an agency agreement and cancelling an irrevocable general power of attorney, arguing the agency was coupled with interest. The defendant had invoked a clause allowing them to take over project control and terminate the agreement. The core legal question was whether an agency agreement coupled with interest could be unilaterally terminated and whether an interim injunction was appropriate to maintain the status quo. The Court held that while the agency was coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, the agreement itself provided mechanisms for termination and project takeover. The Court determined that because the plaintiff's primary concern was financial protection rather than active management, and because damages could be quantified, the balance of convenience did not favor an injunction. Instead of granting the injunction, the Court ordered the defendant to furnish security and provide periodic financial disclosures to protect the plaintiff's interests, while referring the underlying dispute to arbitration as per the agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a principal unilaterally terminate an agency agreement that is coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Is an interim injunction mandatory in every case where an agency agreement is alleged to be coupled with interest?
  • Does the term 'property' in Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 include intangible interests in a contract?
  • Can a court grant interim financial protection to a party instead of a full injunction when the primary interest is monetary?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza vs Mst. Naghma Khatoon and others1987 MLD 2424 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rashid vs Abdul Salam and Others1987 PLD Karachi 268 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Alias Ramzoo vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 882(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan alias Nango Talani vs Ahmed Bux and another1987 MLD 1114 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiullah vs The Board of Trustees for Abandoned1987 MLD 558 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiuddin vs Mst. Naseem Parveen And Another1987 P Cr. L J 807 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1360 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-28
  post-arrest baildetermination of ageossification testjuvenile offendercommon intentionabscondencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by Muhammad Rafiq, who along with three co-accused brothers, was charged with premeditated murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of being a minor below 16 years of age under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alongside considerations regarding the attribution of the fatal blow, the medical evidence, and the non-recovery of the weapon. The Sindh High Court held that the cumulative effect of the birth entry indicating minority, the medical margin of error in ossification tests, the fact that the fatal blow was attributed to a co-accused rather than the applicant, and the absence of recurrence justified granting bail. The court laid down the principle that where conflicting evidence exists regarding the age of an accused person claiming minority at the bail stage, the benefit of doubt regarding age should lean toward the accused when combined with other mitigating factors in the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person claiming to be under the age of 16 years is entitled to the benefit of the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a birth certificate despite an ossification test report suggesting a slightly higher age?
  • Can the cumulative effect of minority, non-attribution of the fatal blow, and lack of weapon recovery constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Does the abscondence of an accused by itself disentitle them to bail when other mitigating factors are present?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raees vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 296 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Qassim vs Tahir Memon and others1987 CLC 349 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Punhal vs Kamal Khan And Another1987 P Cr. L J 2343 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nisar Ali vs Principal and Chairman, Selection Committee1987 MLD 2239(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Shah vs The State1987 MLD 933 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem Qureshi and another vs The State1987 MLD 3306 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naim vs Syed Muhammad Ahmad Rizvi1987 MLD 2367 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State1987 MLD 2252 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 336 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem And 2 Others vs The State-1987 P C r. L J 1176 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzaffar vs Allied Bank of Pakistan and 7 Others1987 PLD Karachi 501 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murtaza vs Safia Bai1987 MLD 468 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munir Bin Ismail vs Miss Zeenat Qureshi1987 CLC 1712 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mubeen and another vs The State1987 MLD 1568 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mahmood Ahmad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 312 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Mir Khan1987 PLD Karachi 363 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Arshad Jamil and 2 others1987 MLD 671 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan Junejo vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1622 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and another vs The State1987 MLD 2184(2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kalim Khan and 2 Others vs Muhammad Farouk Khan and Another s1987 PLD Karachi 38 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kalim Khan and 2 Other vs Muhammad Farouk Khan and Another1987 PLD Karachi 38 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed Akhtar vs Publicinlarge1987 CLC 262 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-21
  succession certificateletters of administrationsurety bondsecuritynazir of the courtsubordinate legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses the legal questions regarding the court's power to dispense with sureties or security when granting Letters of Administration or Succession Certificates, and whether such certificates can be issued in favour of the Nazir of the court. The core legal questions involve the interpretation of the Succession Act 1925 regarding mandatory versus discretionary security requirements. The court held that under Section 291 of the Succession Act 1925, the court has no power to dispense with sureties when granting Letters of Administration. However, regarding Succession Certificates, under Section 375, security is mandatory if the case falls under subsections (3) or (4) of Section 373, but is discretionary in other cases. Furthermore, the court held that the Succession Act does not authorize the issuance of Succession Certificates or Letters of Administration in favour of the Nazir of the court, and subordinate rules like the Sind Chief Court Rules cannot override substantive statutory provisions. The key principles laid down include the mandatory nature of security for Letters of Administration and the conditional discretion available for Succession Certificates.

  Questions settled

  • Does the court have the power to dispense with sureties when granting Letters of Administration?
  • Is furnishing security discretionary when granting a Succession Certificate under the Succession Act 1925?
  • Can a Succession Certificate or Letters of Administration be granted in favour of the Nazir of the court?
  • Do subordinate rules such as the Sind Chief Court Rules override the substantive provisions of the Succession Act 1925 regarding security?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Muhammad Rahim1987 CLC 176 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-21
  fair rentrent controllertenantlandlordSind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979statutory interpretationrental value
  Summary & questions settled

  This statutory appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 challenged the Rent Controller's order fixing fair rent of three shops at Rs.300 per month each under Section 8. The appellant/tenant contended that under Section 9(2), any increase in rent could not exceed 10% per annum on the existing rent, and that the Rent Controller erred by fixing identical fair rent for three shops that historically had different rental values. The Sindh High Court examined the relationship between Sections 8 and 9 of the Ordinance. The Court held that Section 9(2) applies only to cases where fair rent has already been previously fixed by the Controller and a landlord seeks a subsequent increase; it does not restrict initial fair rent determination under Section 8. However, on the factual merits, the Court found that the Rent Controller provided no rationale for fixing identical rent for all three shops when historical records established that two shops were consistently valued at half of the third shop. The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining Shop No. 11 at Rs.300 and reducing Shop Nos. 12 and 23 to Rs.150 each.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 9(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 limit the initial determination of fair rent under Section 8 to a maximum increase of ten per cent on the existing rent?
  • Is the applicability of Section 9 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 restricted only to cases where fair rent has already been previously fixed?
  • Can a Rent Controller fix uniform fair rent for multiple premises where undisputed evidence demonstrates historically distinct rental values?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffar vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1338 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-19
  post-arrest bailconflicting versionsfurther inquirydirect complaintF.I.R.murdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, who was accused of murder in a direct complaint filed by the deceased's wife, despite having previously lodged an F.I.R. against other individuals for the same incident. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the existence of two diametrically opposed versions of the incident: the applicant's F.I.R. implicating third parties and the subsequent direct complaint implicating the applicant. The court held that where the prosecution's case is clouded by conflicting versions and the police investigation itself is under scrutiny for potential misconduct and interpolation, the case against the accused requires further inquiry. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, holding that there were no reasonable grounds at this stage to believe the applicant committed the non-bailable offence. The key principle laid down is that the existence of conflicting versions of an incident, which necessitates a deeper examination of the evidence, entitles an accused person to the concession of bail under the principle of further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is a case considered to be one of 'further inquiry' when the police investigation is challenged for misconduct and interpolation?
  • Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution relies on a direct complaint that contradicts the initial F.I.R.?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Izharul Ahsan Qureshi vs Pakistan International Airlines1987 PLC 638 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Izhar Khan vs Muhammad Mobin Siddiqui through his Legal1987 MLD 922 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Waqf Muhammad Meher Elahi1987 CLC 496 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail Balouch vs Mst. Rabia and another1987 MLD 280 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail and 3 others vs Settlement Commissioner1987 MLD 721 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq Yaqoob vs Umrao Charli and another1987 CLC 410 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaq through his 8 Legal Heirs vs S. Khursheed Alam1987 CLC 1716 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal And Anthers vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 260 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Alias Chikna vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Inayat vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2186 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Imran vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 6 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Railways and Communications, Islamabad and 2 others1987 MLD 634 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilhamul Bari Siddiqui vs The State- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1862 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ikramullah and another vs Messrs Asian Packers1987 MLD 3241 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idris vs Government of Pakistan And Others1987 PLC 397 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idris vs Abdul Sattar1987 MLD 274 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mushtaq1987 MLD 501 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Nazeer Begum and others1987 MLD 255 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Mehmooda1987 CLC 1994 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-01
  ex parte decreeremand orderlimitation periodservice of summonsknowledge of decreerevision applicationdissolution of partnership
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application to set aside an ex parte preliminary decree passed in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The core legal question concerned the effect of an unappealed intermediate remand order regarding limitation and whether the defendant had sufficient knowledge of the specific decree to time-bar his application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Sindh High Court held that under Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a party failing to appeal an intermediate remand order is precluded from subsequently disputing its correctness, which in this case had already concluded that the application was within limitation. The Court laid down the principle that due service of summons requires clear communication of the pending litigation, and a vague or indirect knowledge of proceedings is insufficient to start the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree; specific knowledge of the particular decree, court, and relief is required. The revision was allowed, the ex parte decree was set aside, and the trial court was directed to try the suit afresh on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a party failing to appeal an intermediate remand order is precluded from subsequently disputing its correctness under Section 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does indirect or vague knowledge of a pending suit constitute sufficient knowledge to trigger the limitation period for filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What constitutes due service of summons under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the purpose of setting aside an ex parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Haji Raza Hussain1987 MLD 515 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-04
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide requirementsublettingnon-production of witnesscross-examinationlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlord against the respondent-tenant. The appellant sought ejectment on multiple grounds, but on appeal, confined his arguments to subletting and the bona fide personal requirement of his jobless son to start a photography business. The respondent had filed a written statement but failed to submit an affidavit of evidence or produce any witnesses. The High Court observed that the appellant's testimony regarding his son being jobless remained unchallenged and unrebutted during cross-examination, and the respondent failed to prove that the appellant possessed alternative suitable commercial accommodation. The Court held that the non-production of the son as a witness is not fatal to the case where the landlord's testimony is otherwise unchallenged and reliable. Finding the ground of personal bona fide requirement fully established, the Court set aside the Controller's order and allowed the ejectment application, while rejecting the subletting claim due to weak and unspecific evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is the non-production of the beneficiary son fatal to a landlord's claim for ejectment on the ground of personal bona fide requirement?
  • Can a landlord establish a bona fide personal requirement if the tenant fails to cross-examine the landlord on key assertions and fails to lead any evidence in rebuttal?
  • Does the residential use of a shop by a landlord constitute possession of alternative commercial accommodation sufficient to defeat a claim for personal business requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hyder vs The State-1987 P Cr. L. J 2188 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Mst.Amina Bai1987 MLD 2137 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain Fathavi and another vs Syed Akbar Ali Shah1987 MLD 2360 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain And 3 Others vs The State--Opponent1987 P Cr. L J 324 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hisamuddin Ansari vs Karachi Development Authority and 2 others1987 MLD 3189 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashim vs Mst.Aleema Khatoon1987 MLD 430 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon vs The State- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1997 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon vs Government of Pakistan and 3 others1987 MLD 279 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs The State1987 MLD 860 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Registrar of Trade Marks and another1987 MLD 2564 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Kukda vs Mrs.Shirin and another1987 MLD 2141 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hafeez Khan vs Globe Manufacturing Co. Ltd.1987 CLC 482 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-18
  pendente lite interestancillary reliefsuit for rendition of accountscivil appealdiscretionary reliefdecretal amount
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower appellate court and the trial court, which dismissed the appellant's claim for interest on a decretal amount in a suit for rendition of accounts. The core legal question is whether a court can award pendente lite and future interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when no specific prayer for interest was made in the plaint. The Sindh High Court held that the lower courts erred in refusing interest merely due to the absence of a specific prayer, affirming that ancillary relief such as interest can be granted under Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provided it is not inconsistent with the main relief claimed. The court laid down the principle that the award of interest pendente lite is within the court's discretion and does not strictly require a specific pleading in the plaint, allowing the appeal and awarding interest at six percent from the date of the suit until recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court award interest pendente lite when no specific prayer for interest was made in the plaint?
  • Whether an ancillary relief can be granted by a court despite the absence of a specific prayer for it?
  • Is an appeal maintainable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the main judgment and decree when an infructuous application under Section 151 was previously filed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooque Textile Mills Workers' Union (Regd.) vs The Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind(East Division) And 2 Others1987 PLC 723 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The Collector of Customs, etcPTCL 1987 CL. 309 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs The Collector of Customs and others1987 CLC 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq vs Siddiq Ahmad Khan1987 MLD 223(1) · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq And 6 Others vs The State-1987 P C r. L J 30 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farid vs (Mis.) Mercury Garments Industries , Decided OnK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 105 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Essa vs Mst. Haseena Begum through her 7 Legal Heirs1987 CLC 1723 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs Karim Bux alias Kaman Lala1987 CLC 13 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs Ikhtiyar Ahmed and 6 others1987 MLD 591 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux and others vs Sind Province and others1987 CLC 2301 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota vs The StateK.L.R. 1987 Shariat Cases 63 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs The State and 5 others1987 MLD 1214 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir vs Meraj Muhammad1987 MLD 2573 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bachal Memon vs Government of Sind through Secretary Department of Food and 2 Others1987 PLD Karachi 296 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bachal Memon vs Government of Sind through Secretary Department of Food and 2 Other1987 PLD Karachi 296 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Babir vs Jehangir1987 CLC 447 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azizullah vs The State- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1628 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aziz vs Syed Hassan Askari Zaidi1987 CLC 450 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs Prof. Khalid Mumtaz and 3 others1987 CLC 1106 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs The State- Respondent1987 P Cr. L J 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub & Bros. vs Chairman, Appellate Tribunal Local1987 MLD 2440 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Muhammad Aslam1987 CLC 686 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-22
  first rent appealejectmentpersonal bona fide needlandlord and tenantburden of proofgood faith
  Summary & questions settled

  This first rent appeal was filed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Sukkur, which ordered the eviction of the appellant tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need. The respondent landlord sought ejectment under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, asserting that his two sons were jobless and required the shop for business. The appellant, who had been running his business in the premises for over twenty-five years, contended that the landlord's sons were already employed in business and that the application was filed in bad faith shortly after a previous ejectment application was dismissed. The High Court of Sindh observed that the burden of proving good faith lies heavily on the landlord, especially when uprooting a long-established business. Since the evidence showed the sons were already carrying on business and the landlord failed to prove why their current locations were unsuitable, the court held that the landlord failed to discharge his burden of proof. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere assertion of a landlord that premises are required for his children satisfy the requirement of 'good faith' under rent laws?
  • On whom does the initial burden of proof lie to establish the bona fide personal requirement of rented premises?
  • Can a landlord seek eviction on the ground of his sons being jobless if evidence shows they are already actively carrying on business elsewhere, without proving those existing premises are unsuitable?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asim Zia vs The Custodian, Evacuee Property and 7 others1987 MLD 2068 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1987 MLD 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Mst. Salma Bibi1987 MLD 2336 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asar Hussain, Advocate vs The Karachi Development1987 MLD 3016 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Asar Hussain vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan And Another1987 PLC (C.S.) 432 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asad Khan vs The State1987 MLD 1548 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →