1981 PLP 641 (SCMR)
MAJOR (RETD.) ABDUL H AYEE-Petitioner Versus LT.-COL. (RETD.) Raja GHULAM MURTAZA AND OTHERS- Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 641 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art: 185(3)-Leave to appeal- Contentions raised considered by Courts below-Point of payment of rent-Essentially one of fact Judgments and orders of Courts below not shown to be suffering from any legal or factual infirmity and fully supported by relevant cogent evidence-Petition for leave to appeal dismissed-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13.-Question of fact. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MAJOR (RETD.) ABDUL H AYEE-Petitioner Versus LT.-COL. (RETD.) Raja GHULAM MURTAZA AND OTHERS- Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 641 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 641 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art: 185(3)-Leave to appeal- Contentions raised considered by Courts below-Point of payment of rent-Essentially one of fact Judgments and orders of Courts below not shown to be suffering from any legal or factual infirmity and fully supported by relevant cogent evidence-Petition for leave to appeal dismissed-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13.-Question of fact. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 641 (SCMR) (MAJOR (RETD.) ABDUL H AYEE-Petitioner Versus LT.-COL. (RETD.) Raja GHULAM MURTAZA AND OTHERS- Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. M. Chaudhary, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 4th March, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 6-12-1980, in W. P. 6998/80).
Art: 185(3)-Leave to appeal- Contentions raised considered by Courts below-Point of payment of rent-Essentially one of fact Judgments and orders of Courts below not shown to be suffering from any legal or factual infirmity and fully supported by relevant cogent evidence-Petition for leave to appeal dismissed-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13.-[Question of fact].
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioner who is a tenant in the property in dispute which is described more fully in the petition was ordered to be evicted, there from by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of default in the payment of rent vide his order dated 14-11-1979. He filed an appeal-which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 7-5-1980. At that stage he filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 6998/80, but without any success as it was also dismissed on 6-12-1980. He has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court,
2. Learned counsel submitted that actually there is no default on the part of his client and even otherwise according to the practice prevalent between the parties he had been paying rent in cash without receipts. All these aspects have been considered by the Courts below and the point of payment of rent being essentially one of fact cannot be interfered with as the judgments and orders of the Courts below have not been shown to us to suffer from any legal or factual infirmity and are fully supported by relevant cogent evidence, and the facts and the circumstances of the case) referred to therein.
3. The result is that this petition is dismissed hereby in limine. Learned counsel requested for some grace period to vacate the property. In the interest of justice we grant him three months time. He undertakes to keep on paying the rent regularly. He further undertakes that he shall vacate the property voluntarily and without causing any damage thereto. Orders accordingly. Petition dismissed,