1989 PLP 569 (SCMR)
SARDAR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUR RAHIM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 569 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SARDAR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUR RAHIM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 569 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 569 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 569 (SCMR) (SARDAR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus ABDUR RAHIM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riyasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood. A.Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Rana M.Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 14th September, 1988.
- Riyasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood. A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Rana M.Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, .Lahore, dated 24-5-1988 in W.P. No.351/1983).
S.13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Finding of High Court given !; in Constitutional petition regarding bona fide requirement of landlord, assailed- Question whether agreement to sell between landlord and third party during pendency of Constitutional petition was to affect the bona fide requirement of landlord was within discretionary field of the High Court to notice or ignore such development--No misreading of evidence was found in the impugned judgment- Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Finding of High Court given !; in Constitutional petition regarding bona fide requirement of landlord, assailed‑ Question whether agreement to sell between landlord and third party during pendency of Constitutional petition was to affect the bona fide requirement of landlord was within discretionary field of the High Court to notice or ignore such development‑‑No misreading of evidence was found in the impugned judgment‑ Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Riyasat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood. A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Rana M.Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l. Date of hearing: 14th September, 1988. MUHAMMAD .AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant of urban property against the acceptance by the High Court of respondents‑landlords' constitutional petition and restoration of the order of the ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. Two questions are now left to be resolved; (1) whether the finding of the High Court, regarding the wrong approach of the Appellate Court on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord, was not correct; and (2) whether the alleged agreement to sell executed during the pendency of the writ petition between the landlord and third party sought to be relied upon before file High Court from the petitioners side; viii not make any difference in so far as the Order of ejectment of the petitioners is concerned. The first question relates, amongst similar others, to the question of misreading of evidence also. After hearing the learned counsel in this behalf, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment which might be noticed by this Court. Regarding the second question also, it is within the discretionary field of A the High Court to notice or ignore a development which takes place during the pendency of the writ petition before it. Otherwise too. The impugned judgment is neither without jurisdiction nor illegal on account of the decision of the second point by the High Court against the petitioners. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. AA./S‑222/S Leave to appeal refused.