2011 PLP 1294 (SCMR)
TANVEER QAYYUM PIRACHA — Petitioner Versus Mian NASEER AHMED — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1294 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | TANVEER QAYYUM PIRACHA — Petitioner Versus Mian NASEER AHMED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), ----S. 13---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)--- Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 56 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1294 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), ----S. 13---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)--- Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 56 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1294 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1294 (SCMR) (TANVEER QAYYUM PIRACHA — Petitioner Versus Mian NASEER AHMED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mahmood A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th May, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 23-2-2011 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in S.A.O. No. 8 of 2009). Ejectment petition
Respondent claimed not to be in possession of premises having collapsed before filing of ejectment petition
Ejectment order passed by Rent Controller upheld by Additional District Judge and High Court
Supreme Court granted leave to consider questions as to whether principles of frustration of contract contained in S. 56 of Contract Act, 1872 had been correctly applied to facts of the present case by High Court and Additional District Judge; whether ejectment petition seeking ejectment of respondent from collapsed premises was competent before Rent Controller particularly when he was not in physical possession thereof; and if respondent was not in physical possession of premises at time of filing of ejectment petition and if ejectment petition in such situation was not competent before Rent Controller, then whether dispute between parties was not confined only to recovery of some outstanding dues by petitioner from respondent over which dispute Rent Controller had no jurisdiction and for resolution thereof only civil court could have been approached by petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record of this case with his assistance leave to appeal is granted inter alia to consider the following questions:-- (1) Have the principles of frustration of contract contained in section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872 been correctly applied to the facts of this case by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High, Court, Lahore and the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore? (2) Admittedly the premises in issue had collapsed before commencement of the petitioner's tenancy and the petitioner was not in physical possession of the said premises at the time of filing of an Ejectment Petition by the respondent against him. Was an Ejectment Petition seeking ejectment of the petitioner from such collapsed premises competent before the Rent Controller in such circumstances, particularly when the petitioner was not in physical possession of those premises? (3) If the petitioner, was not in physical possession of the premises in issue at the time of filing of the Ejectment Petition and if the Ejectment Petition was not competent before the Rent Controller in such a situation then was the dispute between the parties not confined only to recovery of some outstanding dues by the respondent from the petitioner over which dispute a Rent Controller had no jurisdiction and for resolution of such a disputed only a civil court could have been approached by the respondent? The appeal may be prepared on the present record and being a rent matter, may be fixed for regular hearing at an early date. S.A.K./T-6/SC Leave granted.