1995 PLP 1197 (SCMR)
Mian MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents ‑
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1197 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI 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 1995 PLP 1197 (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 1995 PLP 1197 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1197 (SCMR) (Mian MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents ‑). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Ilahi Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 1995.
- 4. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner at some length and have also perused the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, the learned Additional District Judge as also the High Court in the matter.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 8‑9‑1994 of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench in W.P. No. 897/94). ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Order of ejectment was based on consent of tenant‑‑‑Tenant's subsequent plea that he was coerced by Rent Controller to reach compromise was an afterthought and of no effect‑‑Concurrent orders of all the three Courts below did not warrant interference‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th February, 1995. MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J: ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 8‑9‑1994 of the Lahore High Court whereby Writ Petition No.897 of 1994 filed by him was dismissed in limine.
2. The respondent No.3 had instituted an ejectment petition against the petitioner for vacation of the house in dispute on the ground of personal need and having committed default in payment of rent.
3. During the pendency of the ejectment proceedings, more particularly on 15‑2‑1994, when the statement of the petitioner was being recorded by the learned Rent Controller, the parties reached a compromise, according to which the petitioner offered his landlord to allow him six months` period for vacation of the disputed premises. The offer made by the petitioner was accepted by the son of the landlord who was acting as his attorney. The learned Rent Controller, accordingly, passed the order directing the petitioner to vacate the premises on 15‑8‑1994.
4. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the aforesaid order and filed appeal contending that he made no voluntary statement and the learned Rent Controller had coerced him to reach the compromise as he was keen to dispose of the matter before 28‑2‑1994, as directed by the High Court. His plea was rejected and consequently the appeal was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. The petitioner then filed writ petition before the Lahore High Court which too was dismissed vide impugned order, referred to above. Hence this petition.
4. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner at some length and have also perused the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller, the learned Additional District Judge as also the High Court in the matter. The impugned order of ejectment of the petitioner was based on his consent. We are not impressed by the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Rent Controller had coerced the petitioner to reach a compromise with the landlord. The concurrent orders passed by all the three Courts, referred to above, call for no interference by this Court. This petition, consequently, fails and is dismissed. We, however, grant one month's time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question on or before 20‑3‑1995, failing which the writ of ejectment from the premises shall be issued against him by the Rent Controller concerned without notice to the petitioner. AA./M‑2283/S Leave refused.