1985 PLP 649 (SCMR)
AMANUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus SAEED HUSS-AIN BOKHARI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 649 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | AMANUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus SAEED HUSS-AIN BOKHARI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 649 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 649 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 649 (SCMR) (AMANUL HAQ — Petitioner Versus SAEED HUSS-AIN BOKHARI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. .
- Sh. Abdul Karim Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.l.
- Date of hearing: 15th March, 1982.
- Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. .
- Sh. Abdul Karim Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 13-2-1982, passed in S.A.0. No. 603 of 1978).
Art. 185(3)--West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13(2)(vi)--Ejectment order on ground of reconstruction--Plea that room occupied by tenant would not be affected by proposed reconstruction, repelled after studying site plan/relevant evidence Leave to appeal refused. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑ Amanul Haq, petitioner seeks Leave to Appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, dated 13‑2‑1982, dismissing his S.A.O. in a rent matter.
2. The respondents‑landlords filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of re‑construction which was allowed. His first and second appeals also failed. Hence the present petition
3. The only contention urged by the petitioner is that according to the site plan submitted by the respondents‑landlords, the room in his occupation would not be affected by the proposed re‑construction. We have studied the site plan, gone through the relevant portion of the evidence and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, at some length, and are not inclined to agree with him. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as being without any merit. M .I Leave refused.