2010 PLP 933 (MLD)
Mian MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KASHIF QURESHI and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 933 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KASHIF QURESHI and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 933 (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 2010 PLP 933 (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: 2010 PLP 933 (MLD) (Mian MUHAMMAD ASIF — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KASHIF QURESHI and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ashraf Shagufta for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Application for impleadment as landlord by joint owner of the property under O.I, R.10, C.P.C.
Said application was allowed by the Rent Controller and petitioner's appeal thereagainst was dismissed
Tenant had been proceeded against ex parte in the petition filed against said two orders
Joint landlord made statement that he acknowledged the petitioner to be sole landlord and he had prayed that he would have no interest to join the ejectment petition pending before the Rent Controller
Joint landlords (Two brothers) had settled their dispute and on that account a statement had been made to the court by the respondent
Based on the statement made by joint landlord, impugned orders passed at his instance were recalled. ?
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
In the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1/tenant, the respondent No.2 real brother of the petitioner landlord and joint owner of the demised property made an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as landlord in the proceedings. That application was allowed on 23-11-2005 by learned Rent Controller and the petitioner's appeal thereagainst was dismissed on 24-6-2006. In this petition filed against the said two orders, the tenant/respondent No. 1 has been proceeded against ex parte on 14-9-2009. The respondent No.2 applicant before the learned Rent Controller has come before the Court and made the statement that he acknowledges the petitioner to be sole landlord in respect of the tenancy of the respondent No.1 in the demised premises. Accordingly he prays that he has no interest to join the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner which is pending before the learned Rent Controller in any capacity, whatsoever.
2. It is evident that two brothers have settled their dispute and on that account, a statement has been made to the Court by the respondent No.2 which is also reflected in the affidavit that has been filed in the Court today which has been tagged as Mark "A". Based on the statement made by respondent No.2, the impugned orders passed at the instance of respondent No.2 stand recalled.
3. Petition is allowed in the foregoing terms. H.B.T./M-194/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.