1995 PLP 258 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD LATIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAQ NAWAZ KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1995 PLP 258 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Majid Tiwana, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD LATIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAQ NAWAZ KHAN 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 258 (MLD)?
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 258 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Majid Tiwana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 258 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD LATIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HAQ NAWAZ KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdul Sattar Chughtai for Petitioner.
- Akhtar Masood Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.13(2)(i)‑‑Default in payment of rent‑‑‑During hearing of revision against judgment of Court below compromise was arrived at between the parties according to which tenant was to pay settled rent of the premises including statutory increased rent and landlord would be entitled to withdraw such rent and that in case of omission on part of tenant to deposit agreed rent he would be liable to be ejected on additional ground of default‑‑‑Revision was disposed of according to terms of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Revision No.1383 of 1993, decided on 27th November, 1993. ‑‑‑‑S.13(2)(i)‑‑Default in payment of rent‑‑‑During hearing of revision against judgment of Court below compromise was arrived at between the parties according to which tenant was to pay settled rent of the premises including statutory increased rent and landlord would be entitled to withdraw such rent and that in case of omission on part of tenant to deposit agreed rent he would be liable to be ejected on additional ground of default‑‑‑Revision was disposed of according to terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. Malik Abdul Sattar Chughtai for Petitioner. Akhtar Masood Khan for Respondents. Learned counsel for the parties agree that subject to such right of ejectment as might be accrued to the respondents on account of default, if any in payment of rent of the disputed shops by the petitioner, including default in the payment of statutory increase of rent at the rate of 25% pursuant to the recent amendment in the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the petitioner shall pay to the respondents rent of the disputed shops from 1‑12‑1990 to 28‑2‑1992 at the rate of Rs.1,000 (Rs.500 per shop) per mensem total being Rs.15,000 and from 1‑3‑1992 till 30‑11‑1993 at the rate of Rs.1,250 (Rs.625 per shop) per mensem total being Rs.26,250, grand total being, Rs.41,
250. The, petitioner has allegedly already deposited this amount in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha, and the respondents shall be competent to withdraw it but if there is any deficiency the former shall make it up within 15 days, failing which, the respondents shall be competent to recover the deficiency by taking out execution proceedings and this omission on the part of the petitioner shall constitute an additional ground for his ejectment on the basis of default in payment of rent. The civil revision is disposed of by compromise accordingly. H.B.T./M‑1751/L Order accordingly.