Pakistan Case LawLatest 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 Anwar vs Hafizuddin1984 CLC 2871 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Anwar and anothers vs Ghulam Muhammad and another1984 P Cr. L J 2438 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 326 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Amin Khan Razien (represented by Legal Heirs) vs Deputy1984 MLD 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Amin Khan and 4 Others vs Muhammad Siddique and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1580 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Drug Court dated 13th March, 1980, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 23(1)(a)(v) read with section 27(4) of the Drugs Act, 1976 for possessing and selling sub-standard drugs. The core legal questions involved whether the analytical reports submitted beyond statutory timelines without mandatory board approval were valid, whether mandatory rules regarding sealing and marking of samples sent to federal laboratories were complied with, whether the analyst reports were admissible without full testing protocols, and whether drug deterioration due to storage conditions warranted the benefit of the doubt. The Sindh High Court held that strict compliance with statutory procedures, timelines, and mandatory marking/sealing rules under the Drugs Act, 1976 and associated rules is imperative for criminal conviction, and that failure to provide testing protocols renders analytical reports inadmissible. Furthermore, the court held that where evidence suggests potential drug deterioration under improper storage conditions over time, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. The appeal was allowed and the appellants were acquitted.
Questions settled- Whether the requirement of submitting a government analyst report within sixty days under section 22(2) of the Drugs Act, 1976 is mandatory?
- Whether failure to include full protocols of test applied renders an analyst report inadmissible in evidence?
- Whether non-compliance with statutory rules regarding the sealing, marking, and dispatch of drug samples vitiates the trial and conviction?
- Whether potential deterioration of drug potency due to prolonged storage under improper conditions entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Muhammad alias Matharo vs Board of Revenue, Sind and another1984 MLD 822 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ali vs Mst. Madina Bano and 2 Others1984 CLC 2446 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ali and Others vs Sind Labour COURTNo, 1, Karachi and Others1984 PLC 1645 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Presiding Officer of the Sind Labour Court, Karachi, which annulled the decision of the Registrar of Trade Unions recording a change of office-bearers for a trade union and directed fresh elections. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioners, who were dismissed employees, could be treated as workers actually engaged in the establishment for the purpose of meeting the statutory threshold of 75% worker representation on the union executive under section 7(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether the National Industrial Relations Commission had jurisdiction to issue an interim order protecting their status under Regulation 32 of the National Industrial Relations Regulations, 1973. The Sindh High Court held that the interim order was passed without jurisdiction as the alleged unfair labour practice had already occurred, and that dismissed employees cannot be considered 'workmen actually engaged or employed' in the establishment under section 7(1)(d). Consequently, the election resulted in an excessive proportion of outsiders, rendering it void. The petition was dismissed, affirming the Labour Court's order for fresh elections.
Questions settled- Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission is competent to pass an interim order under Regulation 32(2) of the National Industrial Relations Regulations, 1973, in respect of an unfair labour practice that has already occurred?
- Do dismissed employees qualify as workmen actually engaged or employed in the establishment for the purpose of fulfilling the seventy-five percent worker requirement under section 7(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does a Labour Court have the jurisdiction under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, to set aside union elections that violate the mandatory proportion of worker office-bearers?
- Can an interlocutory order allowing dismissed employees to contest union elections confer upon them the status of workers actually engaged in the establishment under section 7(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Muhammad Ali and 7 Others vs Sakar Khanoo Bai Represented by Legal1984 PLD Karachi 97 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses the legal effect of age entries in electoral rolls vis-a-vis the statutory age qualification for candidates contesting local council elections. The core legal questions involved whether the Election Authority had jurisdiction to determine a candidate's age dispute post-election and whether a Returning Officer is barred by the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979 from inquiring into the correct age of a candidate independently of the electoral roll entry. The court held that while electoral roll entries are final and conclusive regarding a person's qualification to vote, they are not final or incontrovertible regarding the exact age required for candidature under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. Consequently, Returning Officers and Election Authorities are legally competent to inquire into a candidate's actual age using independent evidence aliunde, such as municipal birth registers. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Election Authority have jurisdiction to inquire into a candidate's age qualification post-election?
- Are entries of age in the electoral roll final and conclusive for determining a candidate's eligibility regarding the minimum age requirement?
- Is a Returning Officer prohibited from inquiring into the correct age of a candidate independently of the electoral roll?
- What is the precise scope and legal effect of proviso (iii) to sub-rule (3) of rule 15 of the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979?
- Muhammad ALAM/Opponent vs Mst. Amirun NISA/Applicant1984 PLD Karachi 135 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Alam vs The Provice of Sind and 3 Others1984 CLC 629 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 356 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akram Quraishi vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 918 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Akhtar Pervez vs Mistry Muhammad Hussain and 2 Others1984 CLC 1921 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal Munif vs Brig. (RTD.) Iftikhar Ahmad, Returning1984 PLD Karachi 76 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Afzal Khan vs Karachi Development Authority and 61984 PLD Karachi 114 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of the Karachi Development Authority (KDA), challenged his reversion from Grade-18 to Grade-17, ordered under Martial Law Order 55, and a subsequent show-cause notice issued for alleged misconduct. The primary legal questions concerned the court's jurisdiction to review orders passed under Martial Law Orders, whether a KDA employee constitutes a "civil servant" under the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978, and the maintainability of a writ petition against a show-cause notice. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the reversion order due to the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction regarding actions taken under Martial Law Orders. Regarding the show-cause notice, the court determined that KDA employees are not "civil servants" under the 1978 Ordinance because KDA is a provincial, not federal, entity. Furthermore, the court found the show-cause notice to be mala fide and without lawful authority, as the petitioner's direct representations to higher authorities were protected complaints regarding corruption under Martial Law instructions, not personal appeals. Consequently, the court dismissed the challenge to the reversion order but quashed the show-cause notice.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review an order passed under Martial Law Order 55?
- Is an employee of the Karachi Development Authority a 'civil servant' for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Can a writ petition be maintained against a show-cause notice if it is issued mala fide or without jurisdiction?
- Does the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance 1978 apply to employees of provincial corporations?
- Muhammad Abdullah vs Monopoly Control Authority1984 CLC 2840 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Abdul Kassim vs The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.,Karachi1984 MLD 370 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Abbas and 5 Others vs Essa E. H. Jafar and 5 Others1984 CLC 1811 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-17Read full judgment →
- Muhamm Ad Ramzan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1984 PLC 1484 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-04Read full judgment →
- Muham Mad Ali alias Mahanda and 3 Others vs The State Opponent1984 P Cr. L J 2867 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- Muha MM Ad Haroon vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1470 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
- Muha M Mad Yousif vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 223 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mufti Zaheeruddin Ahmed represented by Legal Heirs and 3 others vs Seth1984 MLD 739 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-10Read full judgment →
- Mu Ha Mmad Sha Rif vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 754 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
- Mu H Ammad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2592 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
- Mst.Zarina vs Ahmed Raza and 2 others1984 CLC 2690 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-28Read full judgment →
- Mst.Shahar Bano vs Chand Khan1984 MLD 280 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-09Read full judgment →
- Mst.Salma Khatoon vs Mst.Surriya Begum1984 CLC 2619 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- Mst.Nafisa vs Northern Traders Limited1984 CLC 2711 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
- Mst.Anwar Jehan vs Ismail Khan1984 CLC 2849 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant on grounds of default in rent payment and the landlord's personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether unpaid Sui Gas charges constitute rent default and whether a landlord's personal requirement extends to a married daughter and her family. Regarding default, the Court held that under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, 'rent' includes charges payable by the tenant, such as Sui Gas charges; since the appellant failed to pay these charges and did not rebut the landlord's evidence, the default was established. Regarding personal requirement, the Court held that a landlord's personal requirement does not automatically include a married daughter and her family who were previously living separately, especially when the landlord fails to provide a cogent reason for their inclusion and the existing premises are sufficient for the landlord's immediate family. Consequently, while the Court reversed the finding on personal requirement, it maintained the ejectment order based on the proven default in payment.
Questions settled- Do unpaid Sui Gas charges constitute rent default under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does the definition of 'rent' under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 include utility charges like Sui Gas?
- Can a landlord claim personal requirement for a married daughter and her family who were previously living separately?
- Mst.Amtullbai Muhammad Ali vs Messrs Ibrahim Ghani1984 CLC 2793 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zulekha and 7 Others vs Masjide Merajun Nabi Trust and 5 Others1984 CLC 3057 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller directing the appellants to vacate rented land leased for commercial purposes, on the ground that the respondent-Trust reasonably and in good faith required the land to erect a mosque pursuant to a settlement deed. The core legal question was whether a landlord can seek ejectment of rented land under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for the purpose of constructing a mosque, and whether doing so improperly deprives the tenant of the benefit of section 13(5-B). The Sindh High Court held that section 13(2)(vi) entitles a landlord to seek ejectment of rented land for reconstruction or erection upon obtaining necessary sanctions, which the respondents duly did, and that section 13(5-B) does not apply to rented land. The court established that the statutory provision allows ejectment for erecting a structure like a mosque on rented land, provided good faith and proper sanction are shown, dismissing the appeal with an incorporated undertaking regarding future shop leasing.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord can seek ejectment of rented land under section 13(2)(vi) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for the purpose of constructing a mosque?
- Does section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 apply to rented land as opposed to a rented building?
- Whether the construction of a religious structure is covered within the grounds for ejectment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
- Mst. Zubeda Begum vs The Custodian, Evacuee Property and 8 others1984 CLC 2756 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zubeda Begum vs Messrs S.S. Miranda (Pak.) Ltd. and another1984 MLD 1181 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zohra Khatoon vs Muhammad Ahmad1984 CLC 1976 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zohra Begum vs Messrs Abdul Razak & Co. and 10 Others1984 CLC 1643 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts, and appointment of a receiver. The defendants filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of the suit based on an arbitration clause contained in the partnership deed. The plaintiff resisted the stay application on grounds including allegations of fraud, concealment of a portion of the arbitration clause, unworkability and vagueness of the arbitration clause, and that the suit was for dissolution of partnership. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud or concealment and found the arbitration clause to be workable and certain. However, the court established that an applicant seeking a stay of a suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must explicitly state the specific dispute between the parties constituted by a proposition of fact or law, rather than merely asserting the existence of an arbitration clause. Since the defendants failed to state any dispute in their stay application, the application was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an application for stay of a suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must specify the dispute between the parties?
- Does a mere allegation of fraud without prima facie proof suffice to refuse the stay of a suit under an arbitration agreement?
- Does a partnership at will stand dissolved immediately upon the filing of a suit for dissolution or the service of summons?
- Whether an arbitration clause providing a tiered procedure for appointing arbitrators within a few months is unworkable or vague?
- Mst. Zohra and 9 others vs Mukhtar Ahmad through Legal Heirs and 31984 MLD 126 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zilloo Bai vs M. A. Rahim and Another1984 CLC 2331 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zakia vs Salim Ahmed1984 MLD 786 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tooba Taliby and another vs Sultan Lakhdir and another1984 MLD 74 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Talawatun Nsa and 2 mastss vs Officer on Special Duty, Land1984 CLC 1712 · Sindh High Court · 1963-10-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shirn Majid Decree Holder vs Subaktagin Majid and Another1984 CLC 1531 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamsa Khatoon vs Syed Anwar Ali1984 CLC 2291 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shamim Begum vs Ghulam Waris and 2 Others1984 CLC 1895 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shakila Khatoon vs Mst. Akhtar Ghazala1984 MLD 567 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Shafiq Bano vs Board of Revenue,Sind, Hyderabad and others1984 MLD 229 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Salima Khatoon vs Syed Bashirul Hasan Rizvi and Another1984 CLC 2018 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sakina and Another vs Abid Hussain1984 CLC 2041 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Safia Aiyaz vs Shariful Hasan1984 CLC 2589 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Safdar Bano and 4 others vs Inamul Haq and 2 others1984 CLC 2888 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sabra Khatoon vs M. D. Kauser1984 CLC 1035 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rubab Bai and 10 Others vs Mst. Saroobai and Another1984 CLC 65 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Khatoon vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Com Missioner1984 CLC 1957 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Razia Begum vs Project Director, Lines Area Redevelopment1984 CLC 2012 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rashida Khatoon vs Syed Hamid Ali Naqvi1984 MLD 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rashid Bibi vs Abdul Karim and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1271 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rahimia Bibi vs Faizullah1984 CLC 2011 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Qamarunnisa vs Muhammad Hanif1984 CLC 1013 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Qaim Khatoon and another vs Karim Bux and 6 others1984 MLD 542 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Popalzai vs The District and Sessions Judge,Karachi and Another1984 CLC 630 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Pasha Begum vs Ishaque Ahmed1984 MLD 1147 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Parveen alias Parveen Fatima vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2493 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Omarun Nisa vs Mst. Roshan Ara Begum1984 MLD 234 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Jehan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1725 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mushkun Nisa alias Sabiha Quddusi vs Isl a Mu Ddin--Defendant1984 MLD 30 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Muqeet Fatima and another vs Messrs Four Friends Corporation1984 MLD 523 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mumtaz Begum and 2 Others vs Bomanshaw Burjorji Gazdar and 2 Others1984 CLC 1820 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Maryam Bano vs Hussain Ali and Another1984 CLC 1961 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an order passed by a Chairman under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, regarding the validity of a divorce pronounced by her husband. The core legal question was whether a written divorce deed executed by a Shia Muslim husband, absent the oral pronouncement in the presence of witnesses required by Shia jurisprudence, constitutes a valid Talaq, and whether the Chairman possesses jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Ordinance to process such a divorce. The Court held that the divorce was invalid because it failed to comply with the strict requirements of Shia law, which mandates oral pronouncement in Arabic in the presence of two witnesses. Consequently, the Chairman lacked jurisdiction to initiate or confirm proceedings under Section 7, as a valid pronouncement of Talaq is a mandatory pre-condition for the Ordinance's application. The Court established that Section 7 proceedings are not merely mechanical; the Chairman must prima facie ascertain the validity of a Talaq before exercising jurisdiction, as an invalid Talaq cannot trigger the statutory machinery.
Questions settled- Is a written divorce deed executed by a Shia Muslim husband valid without oral pronouncement in the presence of witnesses?
- Does the Chairman have jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 to process an invalid Talaq?
- Is a valid pronouncement of Talaq a pre-condition for initiating proceedings under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
- Mst. Mariam vs Haji Ahmad1984 CLC 2865 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mariam and 3 Others vs Abdul Rashid1984 CLC 1571 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mariam and 12 others vs Muhammad Ishaq1984 MLD 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Latifa Khanum and Others vs Syed Zahoorul Hassan (Represented1984 CLC 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khurshid Khatoon and 7 Others vs Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar and Othe s1984 CLC 2404 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khairunnisa vs M. A. Rehman Bilgrami1984 CLC 3072 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khadija Begum and 7 Others vs Syed Nazar Hussain1984 CLC 2090 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kawakab Begum/ vs Abul Fazal KAUSAR/Opponent1984 CLC 1686 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom Bai and another vs Muhammad Ismail and 20 others1984 MLD 138 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jivi and 6 others vs Mst. Sabri Sahib Khatoon1984 MLD 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Jana Bai vs Mst. Ghulshan and Another1984 CLC 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant-tenant from the disputed premises on the ground of personal bona fide requirement under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a landlord can set up a new ground of personal requirement in evidence that is entirely at variance with the pleadings in the original ejectment application without seeking an amendment. The court held that a party cannot succeed on a case not pleaded and that evidence adduced outside the scope of the pleadings cannot form the foundation for a judicial decision. The appellate court set aside the Rent Controller's order, ruling that evidence at variance with pleadings is inadmissible, but permitted the respondents an opportunity to seek an amendment of their ejectment application regarding specific subsequent grounds if legally permissible. The key principle laid down is that judicial determination must be founded strictly upon the case pleaded in the parties' pleadings, and parties cannot be allowed to shift their stance during evidence without amending their pleadings.
Questions settled- Can a landlord succeed on a ground of personal requirement not pleaded in the original ejectment application?
- Is a Rent Controller justified in looking into evidence that is de hors the scope of the pleadings?
- Whether evidence adduced on issues outside the pleadings can be made the foundation for granting relief to a party?
- Mst. Jamila vs The Secretary Labour and Cooperative Department and others1984 CLC 3527 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hurmat and anothers vs Federal Land Commission and 2 others1984 CLC 2572 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hook Bai vs Waris Masood1984 CLC 3030 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hamida Begum vs Hussain Bhai1984 MLD 1149 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Halima vs Bashir Ahmad1984 CLC 1774 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hajiani Fatima vs Muhammad Siddique1984 MLD 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hajiani Fatima vs Khaleel Ahmad1984 CLC 2104 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Hajiani Fatima vs Habibur Rehman and 7 others1984 P Cr. L J 2794 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Ghulam Sakina vs Khaliq Bari1984 CLC 71 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first rent appeal was filed by the landlady under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing her ejectment application against the tenant. The ejectment was sought on grounds of rent default and personal bona fide requirement of the shop for her son to establish an electric business. The tenant contended that rent was collected in lump sums per custom and that a security deposit of Rs. 3,000 was held by the landlady. The High Court held that upon expiration of a lease agreement, statutory rules govern rent payments, and prior acceptance of delayed rent does not alter mandatory statutory payment terms. However, as the landlady held a refundable security deposit exceeding the alleged arrears of rent, such deposit was liable to be adjusted against the arrears, precluding eviction on the ground of default. Regarding personal requirement, the Court held that un-cross-examined evidence established bona fide need and neither the tenant nor court can dictate the suitability of a location for the landlord's intended business. The appeal was allowed, and eviction ordered on the ground of personal bona fide use.
Questions settled- Does a landlord's past acceptance of delayed rent in lump sums create a binding practice that excuses future rent defaults under statutory rent laws?
- Can a security deposit held by a landlord be adjusted against arrears of rent to disentitle the landlord from seeking ejectment on the ground of default?
- Can a court or tenant challenge the suitability of a demised shop for the specific business for which the landlord seeks personal bona fide use?
- Mst. Ghousia Iqrar vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal,Karachi and Another1984 PLC 1400 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Feroz Begum vs Mst. Fatima Begum1984 CLC 2121 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima vs Ahmed Khan Ansari and another1984 MLD 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima Bi and 15 Others vs Muhammad Amin1984 PLD Karachi 63 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-24Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farida and Others vs Noor Muhammad1984 CLC 1649 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Elvinia alias Guddi vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2911 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-06Read full judgment →
- Mst. Begum Jan vs Abdul Rasool1984 CLC 755 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed against the order of the Rent Controller, Sukkur, which dismissed the appellant's ejectment application. The appellant had sought eviction of the respondent on the ground of personal bona fide requirement, falsely asserting in her application that she was a widow and that she resided with her children at a relative's house. During cross-examination, she admitted that her husband was alive and that she held only a minor share in the premises. The Rent Controller dismissed the application due to this material misstatement. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that a party approaching the court must do so with clean hands. While a single incorrect averment may not always be fatal, a deliberate misrepresentation of widowhood to gain the court's sympathy severely undermines the landlord's bona fides. The Court concluded that such misrepresentation casts doubt on the credibility of the personal requirement claim, and dismissed the appeal, reserving the appellant's right to file a fresh application under Section 14 of the Ordinance now that her husband had actually expired.
Questions settled- Does a material misrepresentation regarding a landlord's marital status in an eviction application adversely affect the credibility of their claim of personal bona fide requirement?
- Can a landlord who approaches the rent controller with unclean hands succeed in proving a bona fide personal need?
- Can a subsequent change in circumstances, such as the actual death of a spouse during pendency, validate a misrepresentation of widowhood made in the original ejectment application?
- Mst. Aziz a and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2910 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Asghari Begum Ansari vs Ahsan Moquim Ansari and 7 Others1984 CLC 762 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Asghari Begum and 5 others vs Ali Rehman and 2 others1984 MLD 756 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Anwari Begum vs Noor Hassan1984 CLC 265 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenged the Rent Controller's order rejecting an ejectment application filed by a landlady against her tenant. The landlady sought eviction on grounds of nuisance, property damage, personal requirement, and default in rent payment. The Court examined the evidence regarding each ground. Regarding nuisance and property damage, the Court found the landlady's evidence vague and unsubstantiated, affirming the Rent Controller's findings. On personal requirement, the Court held that the landlady failed to prove bona fide need, noting that other tenements in the building had fallen vacant and were re-let to new tenants instead of being occupied by her family. Regarding rent default, the Court rejected the landlady's claim, finding the tenant's oral testimony supported by documentary evidence—specifically a money order accepted without protest and various cheques—while the landlady's testimony was inconsistent. The Court held that where a landlord fails to prove the necessity of the specific premises occupied by the tenant and fails to substantiate claims of default against documentary evidence, the ejectment application must be dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a landlord claim personal requirement for a specific tenement when other similar units in the same building have fallen vacant and were re-let to new tenants?
- Does the acceptance of a money order by a landlord without protest or condition undermine a claim of rent default?
- Is a landlord's solitary oral testimony sufficient to prove rent default when contradicted by the tenant's oral testimony supported by documentary evidence?