1983 PLP 1637 (CLC)
LIAQAT ALI‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 1637 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam S. Sidhwa, J |
| Parties | LIAQAT ALI‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 1637 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 1637 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 1637 (CLC) (LIAQAT ALI‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Moinud Din Chaudhry for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑‑ S. 13‑Consolidation of suit for permanent injunction with ejectment petition‑Rent Controller deciding both cases after framing con solidated issues‑Such fact, not affecting position‑Defect at all a technical one‑‑Petitioner having agreed to consolidation, held, cannot be allowed to object same in constitutional petition‑.Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ ‑ S. 13‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9‑Bona fide, requirement‑Both Courts below concurrently finding that If disputed shop bona fide required for personal use ‑Such findings not interfered with by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
This is a constitutional ‑petition which calls in question the judgment of the Rent Controller, Shujabad, dated 8th December, 1981 and. that of an Additional District Judge of Multan ordering the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed shop in Shujabad.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner has made the following submissions :‑ (1) That the petitioner's suit for permanent injunction to restrain Fateh Muhammad, respondent, from dispossessing him from the disputed shop without recourse to law and the respondent's suit for eviction were illegally consolidated by the learned Rent Controller and that the Rent Controller passed a common judgment in both the cases, which he could not do which has vitiated the trial. (2) That the respondent/landlord was not serious in claiming eviction, as in his evidence he stated
3. As regards the first submission, even if it be assumed that the, learned Rent Controller consolidated the petitioner's suit with the respondent's eviction application and after framing consolidated issues decided both the cases, it does not affect the position, as the Rent Controller has the powers of Civil Judge, Ist Class also. Even assuming that there is' any technical defect, the same cannot enure for the benefit of the petitioner, as the judgment is a consolidated judgment and issue No. 2 has been decided after taking into consideration all the evidence. The petitioner himself having agreed to the consolidation, cannot be allowed to object to the same now in constitutional jurisdiction. The submission,' therefore, has no basis and is rejected.
4. As regards the second submission, the statement made by Fateh Muhammad, respondent, as quoted above; was made in answer to a hypo thetical question which was put to him in cross‑examination. The total evidence recorded clearly shows that the respondent requires the shop bonafide for his own business. ' In these circumstances, this submission has no weight and is rejected.
5. Both the lower Courts, after a proper appraisal of the case and the evidence on the record; have come to concurrent finding that the disputed shop is bona fide required by the respondent for his personal use and I see no reason to differ from that finding.
6. For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition the same is dismissed in limine. On the principle of Nazir Ahmed's case (N L R 1992 S C 14 ) the petitioner is given two months' time to vacate the property in dispute subject to his not being a defaulter and continuous payment of rent for this extended period. M. A. K. Petition dismissed.