1988 PLP 1564 (CLC)
ABDUL RAHIM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mir MEHTAB AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1564 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RAHIM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mir MEHTAB AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act (VI of 1959)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1564 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Act (VI of 1959)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1564 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1564 (CLC) (ABDUL RAHIM and others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mir MEHTAB AHMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioners.
- Kh. Sadiq Hassan Turk for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Findings of fact concurrently arrived at by Rent Controller and the Appellate Court after considering each and every point raised by petitioner before them, held, could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction, when petitioner had failed to point out any legal infirmity muchless the jurisdictional defect in judgments passed by both Courts below.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioners. Kh. Sadiq Hassan Turk for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th January, 1988. The petitioner, Abdul Rahim, was moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the orders dated 17‑11‑1986 and 16‑7‑1987 passed by the respondents No.2 and 3 respectively, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. The case in brief is that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent No.l in respect of shop No. SW‑III‑40‑S‑44, situate in Islampura (Krishan Nagar), Lahore respondent No.l filed a petition for ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of default as well as personal need which petition was contested by the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller after recording the evidence passed an order of ejectment against the petitioner on the ground of personal need vide his order dated 17‑11‑1986. The petitioner went in appeal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Lahore vide his order dated 16‑7‑1987.
3. The only point raised by the learned counsel is that the evidence of the petitioner has not at all been considered by the two learned Courts below and thereby a substantial injustice has been done to him. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a finding of fact having been arrived at by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the learned Additional District Judge. He stated that the entire evidence of the parties has been taken into consideration and thereafter the matter has been disposed of.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. The learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Additional District Judge have considered each and every point raised by the petitioner before them and thereafter they have come to a finding of fact which finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any legal infirmity much less the jurisdictional defects in the impugned judgment of the learned Courts below. There is no substance in the petition which is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the petitioner shall be given four months time to vacate the premises in question provided he continues paying rent to the landlord. H . B . T . / A‑311/ L Petition dismissed