1988 PLP 1222 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1222 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1222 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1222 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1222 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAIQUE‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch.Abdul Shakoor, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 25th April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment dated 31‑10‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.3879 of 1983). West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Ejectment‑‑Tenant raising question of title‑‑Effect of‑ Ejectment proceedings‑‑ Plea that petitioner having raised a question of title, Rent Controller should not have decided case, repelled‑‑Not obligatory on Rent Controller that whenever tenant raised plea of title, he should refer parties to the Civil Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from Judgment dated 31‑10‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional Petition arising out of an urban rent restriction matter filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. All the relevant documents including the orders of the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge passed against the petitioner, directing his eviction as tenant, have not been placed on record. It is, therefore, proper not to go into the facts and merits of the case and deal with the only question raised by the learned counsel; namely, that the petitioner having raised a question of title the Rent Controller should not have decided the case.
3. There is no law that whenever a tenant raises plea of title, the Rent Controller is obliged to refer the parties to the Civil Court. In this case, it appears from the impugned order that the petitioner, had filed four suits‑‑two were dismissed and two were withdrawn. It is not known what was the nature of that litigation nor the learned counsel is aware as to whether the petitioner has sought any other remedy available to him in pursuance of the observations made in the impugned order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any merit in the ‑point raised by him. That being so, this petition is dismissed. M.I/M‑435/S Petition dismissed.