1989 PLP 649 (SCMR)
Raja SHER ALI — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 649 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Saad Sao0d Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Raja SHER ALI — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 649 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 649 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Saad Sao0d Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 649 (SCMR) (Raja SHER ALI — Petitioner Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Pcracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988.
- Muhammad Munir Pcracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 6-11-88 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Writ Petition No.547 of 1988).
S. 9--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Reconstruction of shop after demolition--Before completion of reconstruction, tenant re-occupied such shop without consent/permission of landlord--Landlord's suit to recover possession was decreed by Trial Court and tenant's revision and Constitutional petition against such decree were dismissed--Finding of fact recorded by trial Court was that tenant had forcibly occupied the shop--Such finding was recorded by Trial Court after considering the entire evidence and same was upheld in tenant's revision and Constitutional petition--Tenant's plea that landlord had given him undertaking to relet him the shop would be of no avail as such undertaking, if any, had to be fulfilled after reconstruction was complete--Leave to, appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 9‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Reconstruction of shop after demolition‑‑Before completion of reconstruction, tenant re‑occupied such shop without consent/permission of landlord‑‑Landlord's suit to recover possession was decreed by Trial Court and tenant's revision and Constitutional petition against such decree were dismissed‑‑Finding of fact recorded by trial Court was that tenant had forcibly occupied the shop‑‑Such finding was recorded by Trial Court after considering the entire evidence and same was upheld in tenant's revision and Constitutional petition‑‑Tenant's plea that landlord had given him undertaking to relet him the shop would be of no avail as such undertaking, if any, had to be fulfilled after reconstruction was complete‑‑Leave to, appeal was refused in circumstances. Muhammad Munir Pcracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner was a tenant in a shop situate at G: T. road near Dina in District Jhelum. He vacated the shop in order to permit the landlords to carry out reconstruction after demolition. Before the reconstruction was complete he reoccupied the shop without the consent or permission of the landlords. His forcible occupation led the landlords to file a suit under section 9, Specific Relief Act. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the petitioner's revision petition before the District Judge and writ petition in the High Court remained unsuccessful. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. There is a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court that the petitioner had forcibly occupied the shop. This finding was recorded by the learned trial Court after considering the entire evidence. We are not persuaded to interfere with it.
3. The case of the petitioner before us is that he had vacated the shop only temporarily and that the landlords had given him an undertaking that they would relet the shop to him after reconstruction. One of the landlords appeared in the witness‑box and denied that any such undertaking was given to the petitioner. However that may be, the shop was still. in the process of reconstruction when the petitioner took over its possession. Thus, even if there was any undertaking given by the landlords, that was to be fulfilled after the reconstruction was complete. In this case, the petitioner, as already noticed, entered the shop while it was still in an incomplete state. We would therefore, dismiss this petition. A.A./S‑234/S Petition dismissed.