1982 PLP 2358 (CLC)
SHABBIR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 2358 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munawwar Elahee Rana, J |
| Parties | SHABBIR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE 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 2358 (CLC)?
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 2358 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munawwar Elahee Rana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 2358 (CLC) (SHABBIR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mst. Karam Bibi v. Mir Muhammad Hassan and others P L D 1962 (W. P.) Quetta 67 held not applicable. Asmat Kamal Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S. 13‑Question of relationship of landlord and tenant concur rently decided by lower Courts‑Pendency of adjudication by civil Court as regards sale deed, held, does not bar Rant Controller to decide issue in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No. 3423 of 1981, decided on 8th July, 1981. ‑‑S. 13‑Question of relationship of landlord and tenant concur rently decided by lower Courts‑Pendency of adjudication by civil Court as regards sale deed, held, does not bar Rant Controller to decide issue in accordance with law. Mst. Karam Bibi v. Mir Muhammad Hassan and others P L D 1962 (W. P.) Quetta 67 held not applicable. Asmat Kamal Khan for Petitioner. The case Mst. Karam Bibi v. Mir Muhammad Hassan and others (P L D 1962 (W.P.) Quetta 61) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The question of relationship of landlord and tenant has concurrently been decided by the Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority in favour of the respondent. The argument that the sale‑deed is pending adjudication before the Civil Court is not a bar for the Rent Controller to decide the issue in accordance with law. The learned Additional District Judge, therefore, cannot be said to have exercised his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.