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.

• Commissioner of Income Tax, (East), Karachi vs Ebrahim D. Ahmed and Others45 TAX 232 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Eastern Bank Ltd.46 TAX 56 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax (West), Karachi vs Fateh Textile Mills Ltd.46 TAX 118 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation), Karachi vs Jan46 TAX 162 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax (East), Karachi vs International45 TAX 204 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Karachi vs New Jubilee46 TAX 125 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Cofcot Textiles Ltd. vs Labour Court No. VI, Hyde Rabad and Another1982 PLC 560 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-13Read full judgment →
• Church of England Zanana Mission Societys vs Board of Revenue, Sindh and 3 Other1982 CLC 1557 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
• Church of England Zanana Mission Society vs Board of Revenue, Sind1982 CLC 1557 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shahabuddin vs Settlement Commissioner and 5 Others1982 CLC 1467 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-18Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shah Abuddin vs Settlement Commissioner and 5 Other1982 CLC 1467 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-18Read full judgment →
• Ch. Saeed Ahmad vs M. S. Abid and 2 Others1982 CLC 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ch. Saeed Ahmad vs M. S. Abid and 2 Other1982 CLC 1393 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ch. Jalal vs Board of Revenue, Sind and 3 Others1982 CLC 2020 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-09Read full judgment →
• Capt. Rahat Majeed vs Mst. Kubra Bai (Represented by Legal Heirs)1982 CLC 1171 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
• BURNEY's Industrial & Commercial Co. Ltd. vs Muhammad Ismail1982 CLC 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-04Read full judgment →
• Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of Pakistan Ltd.1982 CLC 2528 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-20Read full judgment →
• Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of Pakistan Ltd.1982 CLC 2528 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-20Read full judgment →
• Burial vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 152 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
• Bombay Silk House and Another vs Syed Tajammul Hussain1982 CLC 691 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
• Bhimji and 8 Other vs Abdul Sattar1982 PLD Karachi 115 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-27Read full judgment →
• Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Mst. Asifa Zafar vs Muhammad Rafique1982 CLC 2344 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-21Read full judgment →
• Bata Shoe Company vs Registrar of Trade Unions and Others1982 CLC 1884 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
• Bata Shoe Company vs Registrar of Trade Unions and Other1982 CLC 1884 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
• Bashir Shah vs Tae State1982 P Cr. L J 311 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad and 3 Other vs Mst. Hakeema and 6 Other1982 PLD Karachi 172 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03
  joint propertyfiduciary relationshipbenami transactionpartition suitvoid alienationLimitation Actmanaging member
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a decree for partition and declaration of title regarding agricultural land. The core legal questions concerned whether the disputed properties were joint family assets, the validity of a sale deed executed by the respondent, and whether the suit was time-barred. The court held that the properties were jointly held and managed by the appellants, who stood in a fiduciary relationship with the respondent. Consequently, acquisitions made during this management were presumed to be for the benefit of the joint family. The court further ruled that the sale deed was void ab initio for failing to obtain the mandatory sanction from the Collector required under the Sind Rural Credit and Land Transfer Act 1947. Crucially, the court established that a transaction void under a statute at the time of its execution is not automatically validated by the subsequent repeal of that statute, absent a clear legislative intent to the contrary. The suit was found to be within the limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908, as the cause of action arose upon the fraudulent mutation of records.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of a statute automatically validate a transaction that was void under that statute at the time of its execution?
  • Can a managing member of a joint family acquire property in their own name without it being considered joint family property?
  • Is a sale deed executed without the mandatory sanction of the Collector under the Sind Rural Credit and Land Transfer Act 1947 void?
  • Does the limitation period for a suit challenging a void sale deed and subsequent mutation of records fall under Article 120 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Banho vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 881 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
• Bangladesh Shipping Corporation vs S. S. "Nedon", Etc.1982 CLC 142 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-10Read full judgment →
• Bangladesh Shipping Corporation vs S. S. "Nedon "1982 CLC 146 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-19Read full judgment →
• Badruddin vs J. B. Advani & Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. and Another1982 CLC 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
• Badruddin H. Mavani vs Government of Pakistan and Another1982 CLC 44 · Sindh High Court · -
  arbitration awardobjections to awardsale of goodswaiver of rightpacking of goodsexport contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' objections under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The dispute arose from a contract for the export of rice between the appellants and the Government of Pakistan, which was subject to a notification requiring double gunny bags for packing. At the request of the appellants, packing was altered to single gunny bags to comply with foreign letters of credit. After shipment, the appellants claimed the cost of the unused second gunny bags, which the respondent repudiated. The matter was referred to a sole arbitrator who rejected the claim, holding that the double-bag requirement was for safe export rather than the buyer's benefit, and that the appellants waived their claim by accepting single bags without reservation. The Sindh High Court held that the appellants' right to claim additional bags or compensation lapsed upon acceptance of the goods in single bags and their subsequent shipment, and that the arbitrator's findings were reasonable and not vitiated by illegality or misconduct. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a buyer who requests a modification in the packing terms of a contract of sale from double gunny bags to single gunny bags can subsequently claim compensation for the unused bags?
  • Can an arbitration award be set aside under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in the absence of legal misconduct or error apparent on the face of the award?
  • Does the acceptance of goods in a deliverable state and their shipment amount to a waiver or lapsing of a right to claim additional items under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930?
  Read full judgment →
• Baboo Khan and 5 Others vs Karachi Development Authority and Another1982 CLC 2559 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-14Read full judgment →
• Azmatullah Husaini vs Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court1982 PLC 973 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
• Azam Ally Khan vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Hyderabad and 31982 CLC 1755 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
• Atiq Ahm Ed vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 815 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
• Associated Constructors Ltd. vs Karachi Municipal Corporation1982 CLC 1984 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-19
  arbitration awardnon-speaking awardmisconduct of arbitratorlump-sum contractdamages for delayerror on the face of the award
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two suits involving objections filed by the Karachi Municipal Corporation against two separate non-speaking arbitration awards dated 7th September 1980, rendered by a sole arbitrator in disputes arising from construction contracts for a hospital. The core legal questions revolved around whether a non-speaking award is invalid for lack of reasons or separate findings on issues, whether insufficiency of evidence vitiates such an award, and whether a contractor can claim damages for delay in a lump-sum contract. The court held that an arbitrator is not required by law to give reasons or separate findings on each issue, insufficiency of evidence is no ground to set aside a non-speaking award, and lump-sum contracts do not bar a contractor from claiming damages for delays attributable to the employer. The key principles laid down are that non-speaking arbitration awards cannot be scrutinized for insufficiency of evidence or lack of reasons unless an error of law is apparent on the face of the award, and employers remain liable for provable damages caused by unexcused delays in contract completion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a non-speaking arbitration award can be challenged on the ground that the arbitrator failed to provide reasons for his decision?
  • Does an arbitrator commit an illegality by failing to record separate findings on each individual issue framed during arbitration proceedings?
  • Can a contractor claim damages for delay in completion under a lump-sum contract in the absence of a specific contractual prohibition against such claims?
  • To what extent can a court examine the evidence on record when the challenge is directed against a non-speaking arbitration award?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali and Others vs Deputy Commissioner and 2 Others1982 CLC 833 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali and Others vs Deputy Commissioner and 2 Other1982 CLC 833 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain Siddiqui vs President, Summary Military Court No, 'C', Zone 'C', Karachi and 2 Other1982 CLC 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain Siddiqui vs President Summary Military Court No. 'C', Zone 'C', Karachi and 2 Other1982 CLC 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-12Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Qamarul Hassan1982 PLD Karachi 993 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
• Arz Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 802 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-26Read full judgment →
• Arag Industries Ltd. vs Payment of Wages Act Authority Etc.1982 PLC 567 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-25Read full judgment →
• Aqueel Ahmed Ansari vs P. I. A. Corporation and 2 Others1982 PLC 1023 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
• Aqil Ahmed and 12 Others vs Mirza Ahmed Baig Ghazi and Another1982 CLC 961 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
• Anwar Hussain vs Kanees Abbas and Another1982 CLC 2282 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
• Anwar Hussain vs K an Ees a Bbas and Another1982 CLC 2282 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali Alias Ghulam Anwar vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
• Amir Bux vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 309 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-29Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Cotton International and 21982 CLC 1187 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Kenneth D. D'souza and 6 Other1982 CLC 1160 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd vs Kenneth D. D'Souza and 6 Others1982 CLC 1160 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
• Allahdino and 3 Others vs Salimullah and 3 Other1982 CLC 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
• Allahdino and 3 Others vs Sal1mullah and 3 Others1982 CLC 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
• Allah Warayo vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 946 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-26Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 818 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-23Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-18Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux vs Manzoor Ali Khan1982 CLC 1604 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
• All Kathiawar Mansoori General Jamait vs Parvez Akhtar Ahmad, Advocate1982 CLC 1192 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs S. D. M. Meerpur Mathelo and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 750 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-06
  criminal revisionhabitual offenderpreventive detentiongeneral reputationprocedural fairnessCode of Criminal Procedurepolice report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges orders passed by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Sections 112 and 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, initiating proceedings against the applicant under Section 110 of the Code. The core legal question was whether proceedings under Section 110 can be initiated based on vague, general police allegations lacking specific instances, and whether orders under Section 117(3) can be passed without affording the accused a fair opportunity to defend. The High Court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings, finding the Magistrate's orders unsustainable. The Court held that 'habit' under Section 110 requires proof of repeated criminal acts through specific instances, not mere hearsay or police opinion. General reputation must be established by respectable members of the community, not solely by police officers. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that proceedings initiated without providing the accused a reasonable opportunity to engage counsel and defend themselves are legally flawed and violate fundamental procedural fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Can proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be initiated based solely on vague and general allegations in a police report?
  • Is the evidence of police officers alone sufficient to establish 'general reputation' for the purposes of Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the term 'habit' under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require proof of multiple specific instances of criminal conduct?
  • Are orders passed under Section 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 valid if the accused is denied a reasonable opportunity to engage counsel and defend themselves?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Khanpur and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 1132 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-08Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Mst. Bilques Begum1982 CLC 261 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain vs Ali Ahmad Khan Warsi (Represented by Legal Heirs)1982 CLC 2616 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30
  dissolution of partnershipspecific performancelimitation periodamendment of plainthandwriting expertattestationstamp act
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal challenged a judgment and decree passed by a Single Judge of the Sindh High Court in a suit for declaration, recovery of money, and possession of an industrial plot arising from a dissolved partnership. The core legal questions involved whether the suit for recovery of possession was barred by the law of limitation, whether a subsequent document ("Iqrarnama") was valid, genuine, and admissible in evidence, and whether legal representatives could amend the plaint to add a prayer for possession. The Court held that the amendment to the plaint did not alter the character of the suit, was not time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, and that the Iqrarnama was binding as it manifested the true intention of the parties. The key principles laid down include that the addition of a prayer for possession via amendment in a specific performance suit does not change its fundamental nature, and that technical objections regarding execution cannot override clear evidence of contractual intent and valid security arrangements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for specific performance and recovery of possession becomes time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act if the prayer for possession is added later by amendment?
  • Does the addition of a prayer for recovery of possession by way of amendment alter the character and pattern of a suit for specific performance?
  • Whether an agreement executed and partially signed can be considered binding and genuine based on surrounding evidence and expert testimony notwithstanding disputed signatures?
  • Are legal representatives entitled to seek an amendment of the plaint for recovery of possession after the death of the original plaintiff?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Jehan vs Zamir Ahmad1982 CLC 1923 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Jehan vs Zam1r Ahmad1982 CLC 1923 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-06Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs Kabir Hussain1982 CLC 702 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
• Akbar and 2 Other vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 156 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-08Read full judgment →
• Aitbar Ali and Another vs The State and Another1982 PLD Karachi 302 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-15Read full judgment →
• Air-Port Development Authority FPM & Others Labour Union vs Registrar of Trade Unions and 5 Others1982 PLC 26 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-08
  collective bargaining agentvoters listtrade unionworkman definitionsupervisory capacityconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a voters' list prepared by the Registrar of Trade Unions for the election of a collective bargaining agent, as well as directions issued to replace the petitioner union's general secretary and the exclusion of 185 workers. The core legal questions involved whether the Registrar had the power to direct the replacement of a union official, whether the general secretary fell within the definition of a 'workman' under labour laws, and whether 185 workers could be excluded from the voters' list. The court held that an outsider or a person earning above a certain threshold could still hold union office subject to statutory limits, that the general secretary's duties were not supervisory so as to exclude him from the definition of a workman, and that the Registrar could not disenfranchise workers merely on the basis of union consent without proper determination. The petition was partly allowed, declaring the exclusion of the general secretary and the replacement directive without lawful authority, and directing re-examination of the status of the 185 workers.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Registrar of Trade Unions have the power to direct a trade union to replace its General Secretary?
  • Whether an employee performing duties under the instructions of others and ensuring schedule execution falls within the supervisory exception of a workman?
  • Can a Registrar exclude workers from a voters' list for a collective bargaining agent solely on the basis of a joint consent of contesting trade unions?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction in constitutional petitions to review the wrongful exclusion of eligible voters from a collective bargaining agent referendum list?
  Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Hussain vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmed and Another vs The State-Opponent1982 P Cr. L J 165 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-20Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bux vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 758 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
• Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and 3 Other vs Anwar1982 PLD Karachi 313 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-26
  civil revisiondeclaratory suitmaster and servantstatutory corporationresignationremedy in damagesreinstatementrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from a suit filed by a bank officer seeking a declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 and an injunction against the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. The employee challenged the acceptance of his conditional resignation and his relieving from service, claiming he had withdrawn his resignation before acceptance and was entitled to continue in service with full emoluments. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the employee, and the first appellate court affirmed the decree. The High Court considered whether a declaratory suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 is maintainable to enforce terms and conditions of service arising from a employment contract with a statutory corporation. Reversing the judgments of both lower courts, the High Court held that the employment of servants of a statutory corporation is governed by the general law of master and servant. The Court established that rights under a service contract do not constitute a legal character or status independent of contract under Section 42, and therefore an aggrieved employee's sole remedy lies in a suit for damages rather than a declaration or reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee of a statutory corporation maintain a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 to challenge the acceptance of his resignation?
  • Does the general law of master and servant apply to employees of statutory corporations whose service conditions are governed by regulations?
  • Is the remedy for wrongful termination or improper acceptance of resignation of a statutory corporation employee limited to a suit for damages?
  Read full judgment →
• Afghan and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 159 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Assistant Collector of Customs, Karachi1982 PLD Karachi 695 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-06Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The Settlement Commissioner, Nawabshah and 2 Others1982 CLC 2034 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-27Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The Settlement Commissioner, Nawabshah and 2 Other1982 CLC 2034 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-27Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs Mst. Abbasi Begum and Others1982 CLC 1956 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan vs Mst. Abbasi Begum and Other1982 CLC 1956 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 2 Others vs Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation1982 CLC 1530 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abdullah (Represented by His Heirs) vs Mistry Shamsuddin1982 CLC 787 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Khan vs Ghulam Mustafa1982 CLC 2297 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor and Another vs Syed Tufazzal Hussain1982 CLC 1301 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Mst. Naseema1982 CLC 1871 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rerman vs Atta Muhammad Khan1982 CLC 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Pervez Ahmed Butt and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 458 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Mst. Zubeida Khatoon1982 CLC 729 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Irshad Hussain and Other1982 CLC 430 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Haji Mir Ahmad Khan and Another1982 PLD Karachi 532 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-27
  rent controleviction proceedingsrepeal and savingslandlord and tenant relationshiphotel premisesstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged a Rent Controller's order maintaining eviction proceedings against a tenant of a hotel. The core legal questions were whether eviction proceedings for a hotel, initiated under the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, could continue under the new Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which excludes hotels from its purview, and whether the use of the term 'contractor' in the lease agreement negated the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The Court held that the proceedings were maintainable. It reasoned that Section 27(3) of the new Ordinance, which mandates that pending cases instituted under the old Ordinance be continued and disposed of in accordance with the new Ordinance, refers to the adoption of the new procedural framework while preserving the substantive rights and remedies available under the old Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court established that the nomenclature used in an agreement—such as 'contractor'—cannot override the fundamental nature of the transaction, which, if it involves letting premises for rent, constitutes a landlord-tenant relationship subject to rent laws.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exclusion of hotels from the definition of 'premises' in the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 abate pending eviction proceedings initiated under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Do the words 'disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance' in Section 27(3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 require the application of substantive law or merely procedural law to pending cases?
  • Can the use of contractual terms like 'contractor' in a lease agreement successfully exclude the relationship between the parties from the scope of rent control legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Fazal Karim Represented by Legal Heirs1982 CLC 2641 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-30
  ejectmentbona fide personal usedefault in rentlandlord and tenantburden of proofcommercial shoprent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an ejectment proceeding initiated by the landlord against the tenant in respect of a commercial shop on the grounds of default in rent and bona fide personal use. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the ejectment application, holding that the tenant was not a defaulter and that personal need was not proved. The District Judge reversed this decision on appeal. Following remands by the High Court and the Supreme Court for additional evidence regarding the personal need of the landlord's sons due to the original landlord's death, the matter came before the High Court for final determination on merits. The core legal question was whether the landlords successfully established their bona fide personal use requirement for the premises. The High Court held that the respondents failed to prove their personal and bona fide need, noting that one respondent failed to produce necessary corroborative evidence regarding his current business premises, and the other respondent had relinquished a shop he previously occupied around the time of the remand. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower appellate judgment, and restored the Rent Controller's order dismissing the ejectment application, laying down that failure to substantiate good faith and bona fide need through reliable evidence defeats a claim for ejectment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal and bona fide need must substantiate the requirement in good faith?
  • Does the non-production of best available evidence or key witnesses weaken the landlord's plea of personal need?
  • Whether the relinquishment of an existing business premises by a landlord shortly before testifying casts doubt on their bona fide requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Atta Muhammad Khan1982 CLC 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and 3 Others vs Muhammad Usman and 21982 CLC 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and 3 Others vs Muhammad Usman and 2 Others1982 CLC 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs Ali Akbar1982 CLC 1864 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ohani vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and 2 Others1982 CLC 1333 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nabi vs Tits State1982 PLD Karachi 500 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Nabi and 2 Others vs The Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1982 CLC 1951 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Rent Controller, Cantonment, Hyderabad and 61982 CLC 2609 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Rent Controller, Cantonment, Hyderabad and 6 Other1982 CLC 2609 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and Another vs Maqbool Ahmed1982 CLC 1889 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →