1986 PLP 1181 (SCMR)
Ch. SHARIF AHMAD — Petitioner Versus CHIRAGH DIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1181 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Ch. SHARIF AHMAD — Petitioner Versus CHIRAGH DIN and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1181 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1181 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1181 (SCMR) (Ch. SHARIF AHMAD — Petitioner Versus CHIRAGH DIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Dispute between the parties relates to a shop in Surjit Building, MecLeod Road, Lahore. This building was auctioned as a 'big mansion' to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 namely Riazur Rahman Sharif and Mustafa Haider Naqvi and others who had originally been impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he had entered into a partnership with respondent No. 2 Dildar Muhammad Beg in respect of the business to be conducted in the shop. The deed of partnership provided that the petitioner alone would be regarded as being in occupation of the shop. However, on 17‑7‑1965 respondent No. 2 is alleged to have forcibly occupied the shop after breaking its lock. The petitioner filed proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. which went upto the High Court.
3. Main contention of the learned counsel in this petition is that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 namely Riazur Rahman Sharif and Mustafa Haider Naqvi had, in fact, rented out the shop to respondent No. 1 Chiragh Din. It was also contended that the petitioner was a statutory tenant of the shop in dispute; that respondent No. 1 had absolutely no right to occupy the shop in question.
4. We have examined the contentions of the learned counsel and find no force in them. We find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned High Court Court Judge in the impugned order. Leave refused. Petition is, consequently, dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.