1983 PLP 1271 (SCMR)
Malik AFZAL ALI-Petitioner Versus Malik ASHRAF ALI-Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1271 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Malik AFZAL ALI-Petitioner Versus Malik ASHRAF ALI-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1271 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1271 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1271 (SCMR) (Malik AFZAL ALI-Petitioner Versus Malik ASHRAF ALI-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtaq, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 9th May, 1983.
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtaq, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order, dated 28th June, 1981 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 3285 of 1981). -- Art. 185(3)-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13--Ejectment on ground of personal use-Tenant ejected there being no stay granted to him-Contention that landlord. in violation of S.13(4), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 sold shop after three months of ejectment of tenant showed that landlord's requirement for personal use was not bona fide-Held, petitioner, if so advised, may take his remedy under relevant law-No other point having been urged, petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑The respondent, who is real brother of the petitioner, instituted proceeding for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of personal use. The petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller but it succeeded in appeal before the Additional District Judge, and his ejectment was ordered. Against this he filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 28‑6‑1981 which is now impugned in the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. It is conceded that no stay having been granted, the petitioner was ejected from the shop on 17‑1‑1982. That being so, the petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel, however, submits that the respon dent has in violation of section 13(4) of the Rent Restriction Ordinance sold the shop to a third party on 29‑4‑1982 which, according to learned counsel, showed that his requirement for personal use was not bona fide. This is a matter for which the petitioner, if so advised, may take his remedy under the law. 3. ‑ No other point having been argued, the petition is dismissed: M. Z. M, Petition dismissed,