2008 PLP 86 (MLD)
Major (R.) Sheikh IJAZ AZIZI — Petitioner Versus BABAR NAWAZ RAJA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 86 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Azmat Saeed, J |
| Parties | Major (R.) Sheikh IJAZ AZIZI — Petitioner Versus BABAR NAWAZ RAJA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 86 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 86 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Azmat Saeed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 86 (MLD) (Major (R.) Sheikh IJAZ AZIZI — Petitioner Versus BABAR NAWAZ RAJA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khurram Mir for Petitioner.
- Iqbal Ahmad Khan for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199-Constitutional petition
Constitutional petition was directed against an interim order
Impugned order was neither arbitrary nor capricious
No jurisdictional defect having been pointed out, High Court declined interference in the matter
Constitutional petition being misconceived, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This constitutional petition is directed against the order, dated 2-5-2006 passed by respondent No.1 under section 17(8) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this constitutional petition are that respondent No.2 filed an ejectment petition under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the petitioner. It is alleged in the ejectment petition that the rent of the premises in dispute was Rs.40,000 per month. The present petitioner entered appearance and contested the petition and, inter alia, took up the plea that rent of premises was actually Rs.8,000 per month. Respondent No.1 vide the impugned order tentatively fixed the rate of rent at Rs.35,000 per month.
3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this petition has been perused.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Rent Controller has fixed the tentative rent without any legal and factual basis. It is further contended that an admitted lease deed was on the record which showed the rate of rent as Rs.8,000 per month. In response the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 states that there are three separate lease deeds on record. According to the latest lease deed the rate of rent agreed between the parties was Rs.40,000 per month. Further contends that in fact the petitioner had paid Rs. 40,000 per month through cheques and the factum thereof was evident from the bank record available on the file.
5. This constitutional petition is directed against an interim order. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 it cannot be held that the impugned order is arbitrary and capricious. No jurisdictional defect has been pointed out. Thus, this Court is not persuaded to interfere in the matter. This constitutional petition is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. However, in the interest of justice the petitioner is allowed till 14th of June, 2006 to deposit the amount in terms of the order, dated 2-5-2006. H.B.T./I-45/L Petition dismissed.