1968 SCMR 526 (PLP)
GHULAM NABI-Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 526 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J |
| Parties | GHULAM NABI-Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 526 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 526 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 526 (PLP) (GHULAM NABI-Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Z. H. Chisha, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Anwer Ali Syed, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
FABLE-AKRAR, J.-The petitioner Gibulana Nab and the respondent Noor Muhammad, who are brothers, jointly occupied a workshop on. Plot No, L. R, 7/25, Lawrence Road Karachi, as tenants of the Custodian. In 1957, Ghularn Nabi set up his own workshop on a portion of the said premises. In 1960, Settlement Department transferred the entire premises to Noor Muhammad and his brother continued as his tenant in respect of the portion in his occion at a rent of Rs. 30 per month. As he made defaults in paupatyment of rent, notice for ejectment was served on him and eventually a suit was filed under section 10 of the Karachi Rent Restriction Act, for his ejectment. The Rent Controller overruled his contention that he was entitled to the protection under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and ordered for his ejectment and the said order was upheld till the second appellate Court. The learned Counsel has contended that the petitioner was in possession of a portion of the property before its p transfere to hi brother and that mere execution of an agreement of tenancy would not take away the protection given by section 30 of the Act, when even an unauthorized occupant was entitled to the said protection, See Mst Chiragh Bibi. v. Mst. Rahim Bibi (PLD 1964 Lah. 116). In our opinion, the above point needs consideration and we accordingly grant leave to appeal, Security-Rs, 1,
000. We understand that the respondent has taken possession of this property. We, however, direct that he should not dispose of the said property till the disposal the appeal. Petition accepted.