1991 PLP 356 (SCMR)
KHALID PERVAIZ — Petitioner Versus AMIR AKHTAR BHATTI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 356 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | KHALID PERVAIZ — Petitioner Versus AMIR AKHTAR BHATTI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI, of 1963) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 356 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI, of 1963) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 356 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 356 (SCMR) (KHALID PERVAIZ — Petitioner Versus AMIR AKHTAR BHATTI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- J.V. Gardner, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd, September, 1989.
- J.V. Gardner, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 28-5-1989 of the Lahore High Court in F.A.O. No. 75 of 1988).
S.17
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Rent Controller as well as High Court concurrently found that respondents/landlords needed shop in dispute for their personal use
Concurrent findings based on evidence on record were not suffering from any infirmity
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioner is occupying a shop in Lahore Cantonment as a tenant under the respondent. On the application of the respondents under section 17, Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, the Additional Rent Controller directed him to vacate the shop. The petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. One of the pleas taken by the respondents in their application was that they needed the shop for their personal use. After considering; the evidence led by the parties the learned Additional Rent Controller found substance in this plea. His finding on this plea was affirmed by the High Court, The case of the petitioner is that the respondents were carrying on business in another shop and that the plea that they needed the shop in their possession for personal use was not bona fide but was intended merely to raise the rent.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that the concurrent finding of the High Court and the learned Rent Controller suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./K‑134/S Petition dismissed.