1990 PLP 684 (SCMR)
Haji TAJ DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Sh. TAJ DIN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 684 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Haji TAJ DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Sh. TAJ DIN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 684 (SCMR)?
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 1990 PLP 684 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 684 (SCMR) (Haji TAJ DIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Sh. TAJ DIN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafiq Ahmad Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11‑3‑1989, passed in W. P. No.2870 of 1985). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction could have interfered in concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th June, 1989. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 11‑3‑1989, arising out of a rent matter, wherein Sh. Taj Din respondent No.1 occupied Bungalow No.75, 21 Acres Scheme, Samanabad, Lahore, as tenant of the petitioner Haji Taj Din. The said petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent No.1 from the said premises on the ground of own use and children's occupation, before the learned Rent Controller, who vide his order dated 24‑6‑1984 accepted the ejectment application. Both the parties filed appeals before the learned District Judge against the said ejectment order. The learned District Judge vide his single judgment dated 6‑4‑1985 dismissed both the appeals. Respondent No.1 filed a Constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court, wherein he challenged the findings of the two Courts below on Issue No.2, stating therein that the landlord had sufficient urban accommodation in the same area, where the property in dispute is situated. The learned High Court accepted writ petition and vide its judgment dated 11‑3‑1989 set aside the concurrent findings of the Courts below in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition, we grant leave in this case to consider whether in writ jurisdiction the High Court could have interfered in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Security is Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the same record at an e4rly date with direction to the parties to file additional necessary documents, if any. M.A.K./T‑53/S Leave granted.