1989 PLP 2007 (SCMR)
Messrs BRITE SHOES and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. MUSARRAT JAVID and 2 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2007 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs BRITE SHOES and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. MUSARRAT JAVID and 2 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2007 (SCMR)?
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 1989 PLP 2007 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2007 (SCMR) (Messrs BRITE SHOES and 2 others‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. MUSARRAT JAVID and 2 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Riaz Anwar, Advocate instructed by Mahmood A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing, 21st March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order dated 21st February, 1989 of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No.958 of 1989). ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Reg1stration Act (XVI of 1908), S.49‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Ejectment of tenant‑‑Unreg1stered rent deed‑‑Admissibility and evidentiary value ‑‑Appellate Court's remand order upheld by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Tenant's plea that Appellate Court had refused to consider and examine an unreg1stered rent deed as being inadmissible piece of evidence and having no evidentiary value; that the document could be used still for some purpose‑‑Landlord having not admitted the ex1stence, authenticity/execution of the deed itself, Court had mentioned in its finding that the tenant had not relied upon that deed in an earlier inter parties litigation and that no direct evidence was led from the tenant to prove the execution/existence of any such deed‑‑Court by way of only supporting material, after making reference to provisions of S.49 of Reg1stration Act, had observed that rent deed could not be utilized by the tenant in a particular manner as it was not registered‑‑Even if that part of judgment impugned before the High Court was excluded, remaining judgment would still be operative against the tenant on the question of execution, existence or authenticity of the disputed agreement‑‑Parties would have option in remand proceedings to satisfy the Rent Controller, amongst others, on the factual aspect of the case‑‑Disputed rent deed being already on the record would be considered only as an alleged piece of evidence relied upon by the tenant‑‑Rent Controller would be at liberty to accept the rent deed as a document duly proved to have been executed or otherwise‑‑Related questions including those of the document's authenticity and weight of evidence led from both sides would also be within the domain of Rent Controller's exercise, regarding appraisal of evidence‑ There being no force in petition leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by tenant side in a rent restriction matter, against the dismissal by the High Court, of their writ petition, challenging an order of remand passed by the learned appeal Court. The learned counsel contended that the appellate Court had refused to consider and examine an unreg1stered rent deed as being inadmissible piece of evidence and or having no evidentiary value at all. This, as argued by him, is contrary to law. The document could be used still for some purpose. Theoratically, learned counsel might be right; but in the circumstances of this case we do not agree with him regarding analysis and import of the judgment of remand by the first appeal Court. The respondents' side not having admitted the ex1stence, the authenticity/execution of the deed itself, the learned Judge mentioned at least two circumstances which support the plea of denial of the respondents/landlord side. One, that the petitioners side had not relied upon the deed in an earlier inter‑parties litigation; and secondly, no direct evidence was led from the petitioners side to prove the execution/ex1stence of any such deed (R.1 is only a copy). It was by way of only supporting material that the learned Judge after making reference to Section 49 of the Reg1steration Act observed that the rent deed could not be utilised by the petitioner in a particular manner, as it was not reg1stered. Even if this part of the judgment impugned before the High Court is excluded, the remaining judgment would stili be operative against the petitioners on the question of the execution, ex1stence or authenticity of the disputed agreement. In this view of the matter it would be open to the parties in the remand proceedings to satisfy the learned Rent Controller, amongst other, on the above factual aspect of the case. The disputed deed being already on the record will be considered only an alleged piece of evidence relied upon from the petitioners side. It will be for the learned Rent Controller to accept it as a document duly proved to have been executed or otherwise. The related questions including those of its authenticity and the weight of evidence led from both sides would also be within the domain of the learned Rent Controller's exercise, regarding appraisal of evidence. With the foregoing observations we find no force in this petition for leave to appeal (in the circumstances of this case). The same accordingly is refused. A.A./B‑119/S Leave refused.