P L D 1978 Lahore 1015 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD YASIN-Appellant Versus MAQSOOD AHMAD-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1978 Lahore 1015 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | -- S. 15-Two appeals pending before District Judge, landlord in both being same but tenants different -District Judge by mistake reading record of other file and mistakenly taking case to be one of default in payment of rent-Appeal, held, not properly disposed of by application of mind to facts of case-Case remanded.-Remand of case. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASIN-Appellant Versus MAQSOOD AHMAD-Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1978 Lahore 1015 (PLP)?
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 P L D 1978 Lahore 1015 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- S. 15-Two appeals pending before District Judge, landlord in both being same but tenants different -District Judge by mistake reading record of other file and mistakenly taking case to be one of default in payment of rent-Appeal, held, not properly disposed of by application of mind to facts of case-Case remanded.-Remand of case. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1978 Lahore 1015 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD YASIN-Appellant Versus MAQSOOD AHMAD-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. H. Najfi for Appellant.
- Abdul Shakoor for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 22nd December 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 15-Two appeals pending before District Judge, landlord in both being same but tenants different -District Judge by mistake reading record of other file and mistakenly taking case to be one of default in payment of rent-Appeal, held, not properly disposed of by application of mind to facts of case-Case remanded.-[Remand of case].
Judgment & Decree
This is tenant's second appeal under section 15 (4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, calling in question his eviction ordered by a learned Rent Controller on ground of personal requirement of respondent/landlord. In appeal, however, the learned District Judge under a patent mistake found that the appellant, in addition to being liable to eviction on ground of personal requirement of the respondent, was also a rent defaulter.
2. The learned Rent Controller, on pleadings of the parties, had framed the issues on merits as relating to the personal requirement and damage to the property. There was no issue nor any assertion in the pleadings with regard to the default. The learned lower Appellate Court, however, when stating preliminaries about the case noted the first issue as relating to default.
3. Admittedly in this case there was no assertion in the application for eviction filed by the respondent that the appellant bad committed default in payment of rent, nor, there was any reply in that behalf in the written statement filed by the appellant. The learned District Judge obviously committed a mistake by considering that this case involved the issue of default as well. He not only thought it so but also decided this issue in para., 7 of the impugned judgment.
4. The mistake, it appears, has arisen on account of the fact that there were two appeals before the learned Judge in which the landlord was the same but the tenants were different. In the other appeal, apart from the question of personal requirement and damage. there was also an issue relating to default. Learned Judge, it appears, by mistake, read the record of the other file when deciding this appeal and obviously ignored the record of this case when deciding the appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has tried to argue that it should be assumed that the learned Judge correctly read the record of this case in so far as the other issues including that of personal requirement are concerned. This is not possible. If the learned Judge read the record of another case with regard to default in payment, of rent, it cannot be assumed that he read the record of this case qua the issue relating to personal requirement, as also the other issues.
6. In view of the above patent mistake committed by the learned District Judge, I hold that the first appeal has not been properly disposed of by application of mind to the facts of the case. This appeal is allowed.1 The impugned lower appellate judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned District Judge for decision of the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Costs shall follow the event. S. A. H. Appeal accepted.