1999 PLP 2920 (MLD)
KALI PEHLWAN (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ) — Petitioner Versus SAIF-UR-REHMAN, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2920 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KALI PEHLWAN (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ) — Petitioner Versus SAIF-UR-REHMAN, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 4959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2920 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 4959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2920 (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: 1999 PLP 2920 (MLD) (KALI PEHLWAN (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ) — Petitioner Versus SAIF-UR-REHMAN, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Khokhar for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Afzal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 15
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Cdnstitutional petitions-- Interlocutory order
Interference by High Court in Constitutional petitions
Ejectment petitions of landlord were dismissed by Rent Controller-- Landlord filed appeals without affixing court-fees
Tenants filed an objection application which was dismissed by Appellate Court
Tenants , filed Constitutional petitions against orders of Appellate Court
Orders of Appellate Court were interlocutory in nature and did not dispose of the whole case
High Court declined interference with the piecemeal decision of the subordinate functionaries
Issue should remain open to be re-agitated by tenants if the final decision was adverse to their interest
Petitions were dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.26070, 26071, and 26072 of 1997 as they involve common questions of law and fact.
2. Respondent No.2 filed an ejectment petition against the petitioners which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Lahore. The respondent No.2. filed separate appeals without affixing the court-fee to which an objection application was made by the present petitioners. The application of the petitioners was dismissed on the ground that in the circumstances of the case no court-fee was required to be paid particularly when the petitioners had themselves taken the ground as to the quantum of the rent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that respondent No.2 was required to pay ad valorem court-fee. He relied on the case of Sajad Ahmad v. Muhammad Yunus (1993 CLC 224) wherein it was held that such a court-fee was payable on appeals.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting respondent has stated that it was in view of the position taken by the writ petitioners themselves that the answering respondent did not pay the court-fee.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The impugned orders are interlocutory in nature and do not dispose of the whole case. In such-like matters arising under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, it is well settled that normally this Court should not interfere with the piece-meal decision of the subordinate functionaries. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain (PLD 1975 SC 457). This issue shall, however, remain open to be reagitated by the writ petitioners if the final IA decision is adverse to their interest. In this view of the matter, these writ petitions are dismissed as premature. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./-K-76/L Petitions dismissed.