1975 PLP 355 (SCMR)
Sh. MUHAMMAD HASAN & Co.-Petitioner Versus Mian MAHMOOD AHMAD KHAN-Respondent
| Citation | 1975 PLP 355 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Salahuddin Ahmed, J |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD HASAN & Co.-Petitioner Versus Mian MAHMOOD AHMAD KHAN-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 355 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 355 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. and Salahuddin Ahmed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 355 (SCMR) (Sh. MUHAMMAD HASAN & Co.-Petitioner Versus Mian MAHMOOD AHMAD KHAN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khawaja Muhammad Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 21st March 1975.
- Khawaja Muhammad Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Nazar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 1-11-1974 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in S. A. O. No. 434 of 1966). -- S. 13--Contention that practice grew up according to which petitioner tenant paid rents in lump sum every six months or one year neither pleaded by tenant in written statement nor proved-Contract of such description, even otherwise, contrary to provisions of S. 13(2) and could not prevail. -- S. 13 -Benefit under S. 13-Can be claimed only when case does not fall within mischief of S. 13(2).
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ S. 13 ‑Benefit under S. 13‑Can be claimed only when case does not fall within mischief of S. 13(2). Khawaja Muhammad Tufail, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Nazar Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 21st March 1975. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J. ‑The petitioner is a tenant, and he has been aggrieved by an order of ejectment passed against him on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller had found that the default was not deliberate, and accordingly exercised his discretion in favour of the tenant and disallowed ejectment. The petitioner's contention has been that a practice grow up, and he paid rents in a lump sum every six months, or one year. He, however, failed to prove this practice, and this Is evident from the instances he gave at pages 25‑26 of the paper book. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the implied contract on the basis of the aforesaid practice was not pleaded by the petitioner in his written statement, and that in any event such a contract was contrary to the provisions of section 13(2) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), and, therefore, the former could not prevail over the latter. The petitioner has failed to controvert this legal position. The petitioner claims benefit under section 13 of the said Ordinance, and he can, therefore, do so only if his case does nor fall within the mischief of section 13(2) of the Ordinance. There is no substance in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.