1990 PLP 747 (SCMR)
ABDUL WAHID‑‑Petitioner Versus EID MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 747 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah mid Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL WAHID‑‑Petitioner Versus EID MUHAMMAD and 2 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 747 (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 747 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah mid Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 747 (SCMR) (ABDUL WAHID‑‑Petitioner Versus EID MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Qamarud Din Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner (in both Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 27‑9‑1986 of the Lahore High Court; Lahore in Civil Revisions No.924‑D and 55‑D of 1983 and 1985 respectively). ‑‑‑Ss. 2(c)(1), 13 & 15‑‑‑Ejectment proceedings‑‑‑Question, whether house in dispute belonged to petitioner or respondent had finally been decided in proceedings before Rent Controller who found that house belonged to respondent and petitioner was a tenant under him‑‑‑Finding of Rent Controller was upheld by Appellate Court below as well as by High Court‑‑‑Question of ownership of house in dispute having finally been decided in ejectment proceedings up to High Court, could not be agitated in Civil Court. Rahmatullah v. Ali Muhammad 1983 S C M R 1064 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Irshad Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Qamarud Din Khan Meo, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner (in both Petitions). Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1989. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The facts necessary for the disposal of these two petitions for special leave to appeal are as follows:
2. Abdur Razzaq, father of respondent No.1 in C.P. No.949, moved an application before the Rent Controller against the petitioner for his ejectment from House No.111‑A, Block No.1, Bhalwal. The petitioner resisted the application mainly on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. His case was that the house in his possession bore No.103‑A and that he had purchased the same in an auction held by Settlement Authorities. After a proper trial, the Rent Controller found that the house in dispute belonged to Abdur Razzaq and the petitioner was a tenant under him. On the basis of this finding he allowed the application and directed the ejectment of the petitioner. From the order of the Rent Controller the, petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was dismissed and the findings of the learned Rent Controller were affirmed. The petitioner took the matter in Constitutional jurisdiction to the High Court but his writ petition was dismissed.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner brought two suits with regard to the same property as was in dispute in the ejectment proceedings claiming that he was the owner thereof. He alleged that the said property had fallen down and that the respondents in the two suits were preventing him from re‑constructing a structure on the site. The suits were dismissed by the trial Court and the petitioner's appeals before the Additional District Judge and the revision petitions before the High Court also failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. The question whether the property in dispute belonged to the petitioner or Abdur Razzaq was finally decided in the proceedings before the Rent Controller. He did not get his right to agitate this question in a Civil Court reserved in these proceedings or in the writ petition preferred by him. It is now too late for him to recanvass the same question by separate suits. Reference in this context is invited to the judgment in Rahmatullah v. Ali Muhammad 1983 S C M R 1064. These petitions are without any merit and are hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A‑677/S Petitions dismissed.