1994 PLP 987 (MLD)
M. MUSHTAQ ... Petitioner Versus A. RASHID and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 987 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | M. MUSHTAQ ... Petitioner Versus A. RASHID and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 987 (MLD)?
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 1994 PLP 987 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 987 (MLD) (M. MUSHTAQ ... Petitioner Versus A. RASHID and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Afzaal Ahmed Qureshi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.13
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Ejectment of tenant-- Validity
Constitutional petition against order of ejectment of tenant in absence of jurisdictional error in exercise of powers by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, would be totally misconceived and would merit dismissal.
Judgment & Decree
This writ petition calls in question the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 22-2-1989 whereby ejectment order dated 8-10-1988 passed by the learned Rent Controller was upheld.
2. The application out of which this writ petition -has arisen, was filed sometimes in November, 1983 on grounds of default and bona fide personal need of the respondent-landlord/Abdul Rashid claiming that the petitioner tenant had not made the payment from August, 1983 to October, 1983 and that after his retirement from service the landlord needs/requires the disputed shop for his personal occupation to carry out business for earning his livelihood. The present petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant contending that the property in dispute was a part of Waqf Alai Aulad and payment of the rental has always been made by him to the Mutawali/Mutawalis of the said property. It is clear from the record appended to the present petition that at two occasions between 1984 to April, 1988, two orders of ejectment were passed against the petitioner and on both occasions the learned appellate Court remanded the case for a fresh decision firstly after framing an additional issue and lastly with the simple observation of a fresh decision. The order dated 8-10-1988 was passed by a learned Rent Controller after taking into account and considering the evidence produced by the parties. It was observed that no evidence was produced to discharge the onus of Issue No.2 (additional issue) by the petitioner-tenant and that having accepted the payment of rental to the landlord he could not be permitted to deny the relationship under issue No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been content with, the submission that the evidence on record has been misread. When asked to point out the alleged misreading he could not lay his hand on any bit of the deposition of the only witness examined in this case on commission, namely, Muhammad Shafi C.W.1 whose evidence was also considered in its minutest details while holding that the petitioner-tenant has miserably failed to discharge the onus of Issue No.2.
4. In the absence of any jurisdictional error in the exercise of powers by either respondent No.2 or respondent No.3, this petition is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed in limine. AA./M-1426/L Petition dismissed.