1990 PLP 460 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD AMIR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 460 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 460 (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 1990 PLP 460 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 460 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD AMIR — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nawab-ud-Din Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 28th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 30-5-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. 'No. 2788 of 1988).
S.13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Ejectment of tenant-- Tenants denying relationship of landlord and tenant by setting up plea of adverse possession
Rent Controller dismissed landlord's application
Appellate Court reversing Rent Controller's decision, ordered ejectment of tenants
Tenants' Constitutional petition against ejectment dismissed
Landlord's case rested on rent deed having been executed by the predecessor of tenants in his favour
Tenants' plea that rent deed was a forged document was rejected by the Appellate Court, upholding validity and genuineness thereof
In presence of such rent deed, tenants' plea that they had become owners of premises through adverse possession could not be accepted
High Court was thus right in not interfering with the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Court
Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
S.13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Ejectment of tenant-- Tenants denying relationship of landlord and tenant by setting up plea of adverse possession
Rent Controller dismissed landlord's application
Appellate Court reversing Rent Controller's decision, ordered ejectment of tenants
Tenants' Constitutional petition against ejectment dismissed
Landlord's case rested on rent deed having been executed by the predecessor of tenants in his favour
Tenants' plea that rent deed was a forged document was rejected by the Appellate Court, upholding validity and genuineness thereof
In presence of such rent deed, tenants' plea that they had become owners of premises through adverse possession could not be accepted
High Court was thus right in not interfering with the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Court
Leave refused. Ch. Nawab-ud-Din Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 28th August, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioners are the successors-in-interest of Muhammad Waris. They were in possession of a haveli in Chiniot. Bashir Ahmad, respondent No.3, filed an application for eviction against them before the Rent Controller on the ground, inter alia, that they were defaulters in the payment of rent. The petitioners resisted the application alleging that they had become owners of the haveli by adverse possession and as such they were not tenants under Bashir Ahmad. The learned Rent Controller framed an issue to the effect whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. Both parties led evidence and after considering the same the learned Rent Controller held that the said relationship did not exist between them; accordingly, he dismissed the application. Bashir Ahmad then filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who reappraised the evidence and came to a contrary view. As the petitioners had not taken up the position that they had paid any rent to Bashir Ahmad, the learned Additional District .fudge directed their ejectment from the haveli. The petitioners invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of the learned Additional District Judge but without any success.
2. The main-stay of the case of Bashir Ahmad was the rent deed which Muhammad Waris, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had executed in his favour. The petitioners alleged that it was a forged document. After considering the evidence on record the learned Additional District Judge upheld its validity and genuineness. In the presence of this rent deed the plea that the petitioners had become owners of the haveli through adverse possession could not be accepted. The High Court was therefore right in not interfering with the order of eviction passed by the learned Additional District Judge. The petition is dismissed. A.A./M-946/S Leave refused.