1984 PLP 886 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 886 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 886 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 886 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 886 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 20th March, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 5‑10‑1983 in W. P. No. 40/R of 1983). ‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XII of 1975), S. 10‑Landlord and tenant‑‑Evacuee trust pro perty‑Sub‑tenancy created without consent of landlord (Evacuee Trust Board)‑Evacuee Trust Board having discretionary authority to regu larise unauthorised occupation into tenancy‑Denial of landlord to unauthorised tenant to regularise his tenancy on ground of his having obtained sub‑tenancy without consent of landlord, held, based on sound principle‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 5‑10‑1983 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby a Constitutional Petition arising out of a tenancy matter relating to Evacuee Trust Property, was dismissed. According to the facts narrated by the learned counsel, the petitioner No. 1 was sub‑tenant under one Raja Muhammad Yousaf. Petitioner No. 2 is stated to be partner of petitioner No.
1. The sub‑tenancy was created without the permission of the landlord i.e. Evacuee Trust Board (authorities). Both the tenant and the sub‑tenant were proceeded against. They tried to seek condonation/regularisation but failed, ultimately, after an initial success for the petitioner. The High Court having refused to interfere in its writ jurisdic tion the sub‑tenants have now sought leave to appeal. Learned counsel has relied upon rules which empowered the authorities to regularise unauthorised occupation into tenancy. It is, however, not denied that this power is discretionary. If the relief has been denied to the petitioner on ground of his having obtained sub‑tenancy without consent of the landlord, it is based on sound principle. He could as stated by the learned counsel still participate in the auction. This petition is without merit and is dismissed accordingly. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.