1983 PLP 1038 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND OTHUS Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1038 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND OTHUS Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1038 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1038 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M. S. H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1038 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND OTHUS Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ismail Chaudhri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 1983.
- Muhammad Ismail Chaudhri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 29-1-1983, in S. A. O. No. 746 of 1978). --Art. 185(3)-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13--Jurisdiction of Rent Controller over industry--Leave to appeal sought on ground that order of High Court not detailed enough to show that finding of fact recorded by two forums below that shop was merely an engine-repair shop and not industry-Scrutiny of relevant material by Supreme Court not showing case to be fit for re-opening finding of fact that being unexceptionable--Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAHIMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Although the learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing tenants' appeal in the short order dated 29th January. 1983, remarked that reasons would be recorded separately, one reason was specifically mentioned, namely, that it is not established that the shop in question was an industry and was outside the purview of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. Learned counsel has argued that the impugned order is not detailed enough to show that finding of fact recorded by the two forums below (that it was merely an engine‑repair shop), was upheld. We with the help of the learned counsel, having scrutinized the relevant material ourselves, do not consider it a fit case for re‑opening the finding of fact, which is unexceptionable. Therefore, the questions that the building in dispute is not a shop and it is so‑called industry do not arise any more. That being so, it is not necessary to examine the question whether an industry (if it is in a building) would not be subject to the jurisdiction of a learned (tent Controller, as argued by the learned counsel in this case. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.