1985 PLP 504 (SCMR)
DIDAR SHAH — Appellant Versus Ch. GHULAM HAIDER (deceased) through Legal Heirs and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 504 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Aslam Riaz Hussain and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | DIDAR SHAH — Appellant Versus Ch. GHULAM HAIDER (deceased) through Legal Heirs and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 504 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 504 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Aslam Riaz Hussain and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 504 (SCMR) (DIDAR SHAH — Appellant Versus Ch. GHULAM HAIDER (deceased) through Legal Heirs and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
- Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.l.
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 4-10-1978 of the Baluchistan High Court, Quetta, passed in S.A.O. No.5 of 1978).
Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S.13--Ejectment on plea of reconstruction and personal use--Leave to appeal granted to consider as to whether High Court was correct in holding that pleas of reconstruction and personal use were not mutually destructive of each other.
S.13--Pleas of reconstruction and personal use, held, were not mutually destructive of each other. Dawood v. Muhammad Yasin P L D 1982 S C 227 mentioned. Abdul Bari v. Khadam Hussain P L D 1978 S C 78; Sh. Muhammad Yusuf v. Zohran Bibi P L D 1973 Pesh. 186 and Abdullah Baluch v. Adam Ali P L D 1961 S C 28 ref. Respondent No.2: Ex parte. Date.ef hearing: 4th December, 1984.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑ This appeal arises from the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court, Quetta dated 4th of October, 1978, by which the second appeal of respondent No.l, was allowed and the appellant and one Haji Abdul Jalil were ordered to be ejected from House No.4‑9/23 situate at Arts School Road, Quetta, Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether the High Court was correct in holding that the pleas of reconstruction and personal use were not mutually destructive of each other. An issue covering this point was framed in the trial Court which was decided against respondent Ghulam Haider and on appeal the order of the Rent Controller was upheld. The High Court in holding, as it did, followed the decision of this Court in Abdul Bari v. Khadan Hussain P L D 1978 8 C 78 in which the case of 9h. Muhammad Yusul v. Zohran Bibi P L D 1973 Posh, 188 was overruled and the case of Abdullah Baluch v. Adam Ali P L D 1981 S C 28, was distinguished, Subsequent to the judgment in Abdul Bari's, case this Court again considered the effect of the two pleas in Dawood v , Muhammad Yasin P L D 1982 S C 227, and hold that they were not mutually destructive of each other. The controversy has now been finally resolved by the decision in this case, Accordingly, no ground exists for examining this question. The appeal being thus without any merit is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. M. Z. M. Appeal dismissed.