1989SCMR98 (PLP)
ABDUL SALAM — Petitioner Versus BANARAS KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR98 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SALAM — Petitioner Versus BANARAS KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR98 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR98 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR98 (PLP) (ABDUL SALAM — Petitioner Versus BANARAS KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th October, 1988.
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-6-1988 of the High Court of Baluchistan at Quetta in F.A.O. No. 156 of 1987).
Ss. 13 & 14--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--First ejectment petition on ground of personal need was withdrawn as parties compromised the matter out of Court--Decision on plea raised was not given on merits--Second ejectment petition on the same plea, held, was not barred under S. 14 of the Ordinance, 1959.
Judgment & Decree
Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 9th October, 1988. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The main point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is being sought to be ejected pursuant to an ejectment petition, which is the second petition seeking his ejectment and it is based on the same ground which was taken in the first petition, namely, that the landlord required the premises for his personal need. Since such a second petition filed by the landlord seeking ejectment of the tenant (petitioner herein) was barred by Section 14 of the Baluchistan Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the order of ejectment passed against him was not tenable and liable to be set aside. It appears that the respondent/landlord had indeed filed an application for ejectment of the petitioner/tenant earlier wherein he had raised the contention that he required the premises for his presonal need but that this petition was withdrawn, as the parties compromised the matter out of Court. Since, however, no decision on the aforesaid plea was given on merits in the first ejectment petition, this issue cannot be said to have been finally decided therein. In these circumstances, we do not think that Section 14 can be pleaded as a bar to raising this plea in the second petition. M‑A.K./A‑362/S Petition dismissed.