1982 PLP 987 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN-Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 987 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN-Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 987 (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 1982 PLP 987 (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: 1982 PLP 987 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN-Petitioner Versus Ch. MUHAMMAD SAEED AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- S. M. Wazir, Advocate Supreme Court and S. All Imam Naqvi, Advocate -on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 3rd November, 1981.
- Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- S. M. Wazir, Advocate Supreme Court and S. All Imam Naqvi, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 13-6-1981, in S. A. O . 422/78).
S. 13-Ejectmcnt on grounds of default in payment of rent and personal need-Case concluded by a finding of fact-No violation of any principle of law pointed out-Interference by Supreme Court not warranted.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑Muhammad Ramzan petitioner (tenant) was ordered to be evicted from the property in dispute by the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 8‑2‑1977. First and second appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge and the High Court on 2‑7‑1978 and 13‑6‑1981, respectively. The petitioner has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the paper book. In our opinion the case is concluded by a finding of fact regarding default in the payment of rent and the personal need of the landlord. Learned counsel has not been able to point out violation of any principle of law warranting interference by this Court in the factual controversy involved herein.
3. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.