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 Yousuf vs Masroor Khan1984 CLC 1967 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Ishaqui (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Abdul Majid1984 CLC 243 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-19
  specific performanceburden of proofbona fide purchasersubsequent transfereefraud and undue influencelis pendensagreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of agricultural land. The appellant alleged that respondent No. 1 executed an agreement of sale and handed over possession of the suit land, but subsequently attempted to sell it to other respondents. Respondent No. 1 contested the suit, claiming fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence, and the subsequent purchasers claimed to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision. Upon second appeal, the High Court held that the execution of the sale agreement was duly proved and that the allegations of fraud and undue influence were unsubstantiated, particularly as respondent No. 1 failed to enter the witness-box. The Court further held that subsequent purchasers bear a heavy burden of proof to establish that they acted in good faith without notice, which they failed to discharge. The High Court consequently set aside the appellate judgment and restored the trial court's decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether verified statements in a written statement can be treated as substantive evidence when the party does not enter the witness-box?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a subsequent transferee is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice in a suit for specific performance?
  • Can a contract for the sale of immovable property be specifically enforced against a subsequent transferee who acquired title with notice of the original agreement?
  • Whether failure of a defendant to testify in court undermines an unverified plea of fraud and misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf and others vs Ghulam Hussain through his Legal1984 MLD 1069 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younus Khan 3 others vs Karachi Road Transport1984 CLC 2830 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-15
  fatal accidents actmotor vehicles ordinancevicarious liabilityres judicatacompensationdamagesnegligence
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a civil suit for the recovery of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, following the fatal motor accident of their wife and mother, who was crushed under the wheels of a bus due to the driver's negligence. The defendants contested the suit, arguing inter alia that the claim was barred by res judicata and ousted by the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal since the plaintiffs had already accepted compensation under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions revolved around whether receiving compensation under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance bars a subsequent suit under the Fatal Accidents Act, the vicarious liability of the transport owner for the driver's negligence, and the assessment of damages. The Sindh High Court held that the civil suit is maintainable and not barred by res judicata, as compensation under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance is in addition to other legal remedies, and established that the employer and driver are jointly and severally liable in tort for the fatal accident. The Court laid down that receiving statutory tribunal compensation does not oust jurisdiction under the Fatal Accidents Act but remains a relevant factor in determining the quantum of damages.

  Questions settled

  • Does receiving compensation under section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 bar a subsequent civil suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  • Whether the owner of a transport vehicle is vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of its employee acting in the course of employment?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a claim for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act after compensation has been awarded by a Claims Tribunal?
  • What is the standard method for determining life expectancy and assessing quantum of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad You Nis vs Mst. Salma Khatoon1984 CLC 1981 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Hakim Abdul Moin Khan1984 CLC 1756 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yasin vs Dewan Bashir Ahmed Khan and 2 others1984 MLD 550 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub and Anothers vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner1984 CLC 2009 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaq00b vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2449 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yakoob vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 839 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs Muhammad and 3 others1984 MLD 1116 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umer Farooqui vs The Assistant Controller of Estate1984 PTD 116 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar vs Government of Sind and 5 others1984 CLC 2788 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umar Sailya vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2903 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Taqi Alvi vs Abdul Hakim1984 CLC 642 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir vs Director, Technical Education Sind and 2 others1984 CLC 2649 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sultan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 45 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sulleman vs S, D. M./Tribunal, Khairpur and Another1984 P Cr. L J 3193 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Settlement Commissioner, Sukkur and 4 others1984 MLD 1024 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique vs Rasool Dux Rahu and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 1757 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique and 2 Others vs Muhammad Saeed Siddique and 161984 CLC 1737 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq vs Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property, South Zone, Karachiand 5 Others1984 CLC 1932 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddiq Mazhari vs Zahoor a Hmad1984 CLC 3076 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif Khan vs Federal Land Commission and 4 Others1984 CLC 2293 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sham and Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2011 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shakil vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1984 PLC 148 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafiq and 3 others vs Gulber Khan and another1984 CLC 2735 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi and 2 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2827 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafeeq vs Mst .Naya B1984 MLD 347 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saraj vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2361 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleh vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 297 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State Bank of Pakistan and Another1984 P Cr. L J 2083 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12
  foreign exchange regulationunauthorized possessioncriminal appealburden of proofstatutory interpretationacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9 read with Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, by the Sessions Judge, Karachi/F.E.R. Tribunal, for possessing foreign currency. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was found in possession of 1,117 Saudi Riyals without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether mere possession of foreign currency constitutes an offence under Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and whether the conviction could be sustained when the specific ingredients of the charged section were not established. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 9, noting that there was no evidence the appellant was an authorized dealer or that he had failed to offer the currency for sale as required by the relevant notification. Furthermore, the Court observed that the appellant was not charged under Section 4, which governs unauthorized dealings. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, holding that mere possession of foreign currency does not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of foreign currency constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove that an accused failed to offer foreign exchange for sale to the State Bank to secure a conviction under Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the specific ingredients of the section under which the charge was framed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs Government of Sind and 5 others1984 MLD 319 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem And An Other vs The State Bank Of PakistanPTCL 1984 (CL) 399 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif vs Mst. Sughran Bibi1984 CLC 1717 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Shakila1984 CLC 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq vs Zaheer Ahmad1984 CLC 2236 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saddique vs Taj Bibi1984 CLC 2120 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sachal alias Sachoo vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2172 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Mst.Ahmad B1 Begum and 7 others1984 MLD 322 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Mst. Begum Jan and Another1984 CLC 2970 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14
  constitutional petitiontentative rent fixationinterlocutory orderrent controllerappointment of lambardarrule of primogenitureabsence from estaterevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two distinct constitutional petitions. The first matter, authored by Nasir Aslam Zahid, J., involves a tenant challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, which fixed tentative rent and directed deposit of arrears. The court held that a constitutional petition against a tentative rent fixation order is premature when the tenant's defense has not yet been struck off, and that a complete and adequate remedy is available by way of an appeal under Section 21(1) of the Ordinance against the final ejectment order where the interlocutory order can be challenged. The second matter, authored by Gul Zarin Kiani, J., arises from a writ petition regarding the appointment of a Lambardar under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules 1968. The court held that an heir entitled to succeed to the office of Lambardar under the rule of primogeniture can be ignored by the appointing authority on the ground of his absence from the estate if such absence hinders the performance of his duties, and that no person has a vested right to be appointed as a Lambardar.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a tentative rent fixation order passed under Section 16(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 before the defense of the tenant is struck off?
  • Can an eligible heir claiming the office of Lambardar under the rule of primogeniture be ignored on the ground of his continuous absence from the estate?
  • Does any person have a vested right to be appointed to the office of Lambardar?
  • Whether the legality of an interlocutory order fixing tentative rent can be challenged in an appeal filed against the final ejectment order under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz vs Mst. Ahmad Bi Begum and 7 others1984 MLD 675 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza Taghavi vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1193 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan and Another vs Inayatullah1984 CLC 1942 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq vs Sind Alkalis Ltd. and Another1984 PLC 1532 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafi vs Mst. Razia Begum1984 MLD 1192 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Mst. Begum Abdul Shakoor1984 MLD 6 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawab and 4 others vs Miss Shung Wounghchi1984 CLC 3521 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustafa vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Communication and Another1984 PLC (C. S.) 353 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muslim vs Federal Investigation Agency1984 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq vs Muhammad Ahsanul Haq Khairi1984 CLC 2684 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mureed vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2302 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa and another vs Member (Land Utilization),Board of Revenue and 4 others1984 MLD 382 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moosa and 2 Others vs Shabbir Ahmad and Another1984 CLC 3227 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-19
  ejectmentstatutory tenancydefault in rentopen plotDisplaced Persons Act 1958Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by tenants against an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller on grounds of default in rent payment. The appellants initially resisted eviction by claiming ownership through an alleged oral agreement to sell, but on appeal shifted their position to contend that no statutory tenancy was created under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 because the transferred property was an open plot and they lacked 'possession' as defined under Section 2(6) of the Act. The High Court analyzed statutory provisions and precedents regarding open plots with temporary structures. The court held that where constructions exist on an open plot used for commercial or residential purposes, the premises qualify as a shop or house within the purview of Section 30 of the 1958 Act, creating a statutory tenancy between the transferee landlord and the occupant. The court further held that 'possession' under Section 30 refers to actual occupation rather than the restricted statutory definition in Section 2(6). The ejectment order was accordingly upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does an open plot transferred under the Settlement Scheme upon which structures have been erected fall within the scope of Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Is the term 'possession' under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 restricted to the definition provided in Section 2(6) of the Act?
  • Does an unexecuted oral agreement to sell extinguish a tenant's statutory obligation to pay rent to the legal owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Moinuddin vs Khurshid Ahmed and 3 Others1984 CLC 3143 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mehdi Taleby and 4 Others vs Muhammad Rahim1984 CLC 2013 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan vs Mst. Hajiran Khatoon1984 CLC 3172 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan and 5 others vs Mst. Shafiat Begum and 3 others1984 MLD 575 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kassim vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2305 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kabir Khan and Another vs Settlement Commissioner1984 PLD Karachi 85 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kabir Khan and Another s vs Settlement Commissioner1984 PLD Karachi 85 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jarjis Athar vs DR. MRS. Akhtar Zia1984 CLC 1038 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Hafiz Abdul Rahim1984 CLC 2420 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jaffar vs The State1984 PLD Karachi 126 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs The State and 3 others1984 P Cr. L J 2545 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Hidayatullah and 3 Others1984 P Cr. L J 379 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ismail vs Haji Khan and Another1984 CLC 2435 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2892 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs Fateh Mohammad and 3 Others1984 CLC 2527 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-19
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementpremature applicationsuccessor-in-interestlandlord and tenantSind Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a first appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the judgment of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to vacate a rented shop. The core legal questions involved whether the ejectment application was premature due to a contractual five-year tenancy period and whether the landlords established their bona fide personal requirement. The Sindh High Court held that the landlords, as successors-in-interest, were entitled to terminate the tenancy prior to five years pursuant to a specific stipulation in the tenancy agreement permitting early termination subject to purchasing the tenant's goods, and further noted that the passage of the contractual period during the pendency of proceedings cured any prematurity. The Court also affirmed the finding of bona fide personal requirement, holding that a landlord's consistent sworn statement suffices when unchallenged and that a landlord operating from a father's shop or rented premises is not precluded from seeking possession of their own property. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment application filed before the expiry of a contractual tenancy period is premature when the agreement contains a clause allowing early termination upon certain conditions?
  • Does the expiry of the contractual tenancy period during the pendency of ejectment proceedings cure the defect of a premature application?
  • Can a landlord seeking premises for personal use be precluded from doing so merely because they are currently carrying on business in a shop belonging to their father or in rented premises?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof of a landlord's bona fide personal requirement under rent restriction laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Sheikh Riaz Ahmad1984 CLC 1913(2) · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal vs Mohsinuddin1984 MLD 1165 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas vs Qamaruddin1984 CLC 757 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-19
  ejectment applicationstatutory tenantbona fide personal needdefault in payment of rentrent deed expirylandlord-tenant relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to vacate a shop on grounds of default in rent payment and the respondent-landlord's personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions concerned whether the tenant had defaulted on rent payments given the expiry of the original rent deed, and whether the landlord had sufficiently established the bona fide personal need for the premises. The Court held that upon the expiry of a rent deed, the tenant becomes a statutory tenant, and the terms of the expired deed cease to govern the tenancy; thus, rent payment timelines are determined by the relevant statutory provisions. Regarding personal need, the Court affirmed that a landlord's sworn testimony is of fundamental importance and should be accepted as bona fide unless effectively challenged or disproved during cross-examination. Finding the landlord's claim for personal use consistent and unrebutted, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the ejectment order and requiring the tenant to vacate the premises within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiry of a rent deed render the tenant a statutory tenant whose obligations are governed by statute rather than the expired agreement?
  • Should a landlord's sworn statement regarding personal bona fide need for premises be accepted if it remains consistent and is not shaken during cross-examination?
  • Is an ejectment application premature if filed before the expiration of the statutory period for rent payment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Idris vs The State and another1984 P Cr. L J 2746 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Mst. Sapaqat Rabbani1984 CLC 2655 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs District Judge and 3 Others1984 CLC 77 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Mst. Jamila Khatoon and 2 others1984 MLD 732 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Another vs Muhammad Zafar Nabi Khan1984 CLC 1164 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and 10 Others vs Ghulam Muhammad (through Legal Heirs)1984 CLC 713 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain alias Muhammad Ali Zahid vs The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and 3 Others1984 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hayat vs Bahadur and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 1986 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2868 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2890 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon vs Mst. Hameeda and Another1984 CLC 3147 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haroon vs Gul Muhammad and 3 others1984 MLD 781 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif vs Kazi Saleh1984 CLC 2610 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fazil Barlas vs Messrs Essajee & Sons1984 CLC 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux vs Muhammad Jial and 5 Others1984 P Cr. L J 3175 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bux Rind and Another vs Government of Sind through Secretary, Labour & Cooperation, Sind Secretariat and 14 Others1984 PLD Karachi 334 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bashir Khan vs Te State1984 P Cr. L J 2886 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Badal alias Mofizuddin /Opponent vs Muhammad Islam1984 CLC 2086 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Azmatullah Siddiqui and Others vs Revenue Officer, Kotri1984 PLD Karachi 413 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azizullah vs Abdul Ghaffar1984 CLC 2837 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-08
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide uselandlord and tenantwaiver of rightrent restrictionretirement of landlordburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant-landlord filed an ejectment application against the respondent-tenant under Section 13 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, seeking possession of a disputed shop on the ground of personal bona fide use after his retirement from government service. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that the appellant failed to establish his bona fide requirement and that the parties' 1974 agreement barred eviction. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court considered whether a mere statement of retirement and a desire to start a business suffices to prove personal need, and whether a landlord can contractually waive the right of ejectment. The Court held that a landlord's personal requirement must be established through an objective assessment of evidence, including the nature of the proposed business, financial resources, and necessary arrangements, and that a mere statement of retirement does not create a presumption of good faith. Furthermore, the Court held that a landlord who explicitly barters away or waives his personal need for valuable consideration cannot subsequently seek ejectment in repudiation of the contract. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord's mere statement of retirement and desire to start a business is sufficient to establish bona fide personal requirement under rent laws?
  • Can a landlord contractually waive the statutory right to seek ejectment of a tenant for personal use?
  • Whether the burden lies on the landlord to prove financial resources and arrangements when claiming premises for a new business?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayyub vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2889 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Shabbir Hussain and 10 others1984 CLC 2798 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-31Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam vs Federal Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi and 51984 MLD 271 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad ASHRAFAppellaat vs Ch. Muhammad Safdar1984 CLC 1890 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq and 3 others vs Karam Ali Tar Muhammad1984 CLC 2564 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aquil vs Khairunnisa1984 CLC 2912 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwer Baig and 2 Others vs Begum M. A. Jawad and 31984 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Kadir Bux and 7 Others1984 CLC 2162 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →