2006 PLP 926 (CLC)
BABU DIN — Petitioner Versus CIVIL JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER, MULTAN and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 926 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BABU DIN — Petitioner Versus CIVIL JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER, MULTAN and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 926 (CLC)?
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 2006 PLP 926 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 926 (CLC) (BABU DIN — Petitioner Versus CIVIL JUDGE/RENT CONTROLLER, MULTAN and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sarwar Khalil Samdani for Petitioner.
- Ch. Khalil Asghar Sindhu for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 2(c)(i), 13 & 13(6)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Relationship of landlord and tenant
Petitioner had denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties
Rent Controller, however had passed tentative rent order directing petitioner to deposit arrears of rent
Relationship of landlord and tenant, being yet to be determined, impugned order directing petitioner to deposit rent, suffered from material irregularity/illegality and jurisdictional defect
Said order was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.
Respondents Nos.2 to 7 filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the house in question. Relationship of landlord and tenant was denied by the petitioner, therefore, the learned Rent Controller frame the following issues:-- (1) Whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, if so, whether the petitioners are entitled to get rent from the respondent'? OP Parties. (2) Relief.
2. However, on an application moved by respondents Nos.2 to 7, the learned Rent Controller passed an order under section 13(6) (ibid) directing the petitioner to deposit the rent w.e.f. June, 2002 to March, 2005 vide order, dated 28-3-2005,.now impugned through the instant constitutional petition.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Undeniably, the relationship of landlord and tenant has yet to be determined, therefore, the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit the rent suffers from material irregularity/illegality and jurisdictional defect. Hence, this Constitutional petition stands allowed A by declaring the same without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It shall be in the fitness of things and fairplay that the learned Rent Controller shall decide the case within two months from the receipt of copy of this order. H.B.T./B-103/L Petition allowed