1991 PLP 1400 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and others ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1400 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and others ‑‑‑ Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1400 (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 1991 PLP 1400 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1400 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ and others ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hakam Qureshi for Petitioners.
- Syed Sajad Ahmad for Respondent No.l.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 23rd April, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ S. 13 ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 ‑‑‑ Ejectment of tenant for default in payment of rent and for personal need ‑‑‑ Ejectment of tenant was declined by Courts below ‑‑‑ Validity'‑‑‑During pendency of Constitutional Petition, person for whom property in question was required, having died, need for the same had disappeared ‑‑‑ Courts below had found that no default had been committed by tenant ‑‑‑ Landlord himself having refused to receive rent in question, tenant had been depositing the same with the Rent Controller ‑‑‑ Such fact was amply prayed by evidence on record ‑‑‑ Constitutional petition having no force was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑ S. 13 ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 ‑‑‑ Ejectment of tenant for default in payment of rent and for personal need ‑‑‑ Ejectment of tenant was declined by Courts below ‑‑‑ Validity'‑‑‑During pendency of Constitutional Petition, person for whom property in question was required, having died, need for the same had disappeared ‑‑‑ Courts below had found that no default had been committed by tenant ‑‑‑ Landlord himself having refused to receive rent in question, tenant had been depositing the same with the Rent Controller ‑‑‑ Such fact was amply prayed by evidence on record ‑‑‑ Constitutional petition having no force was dismissed in circumstances. Hakam Qureshi for Petitioners. Syed Sajad Ahmad for Respondent No.l. Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and
3. Respondent No.1 is in possession of rooms Nos.43 and 48 of Al‑Hameed Building, G.T. Road, Gujranwala as a tenant under the petitioners. On 2nd of November, 1983 an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 was filed by them against respondent No.1 seeking its eviction from the premises in question on the grounds of default in payment of rent and personal use. The Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the ejectment petition on 401 October, 1984. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal which tot) was dismissed on 13th March, 1985. Hence this Constitutional petition by the landlord‑petitioner.
2. Mr. Hakam Qureshi, Advocate the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Sh. Riaz Ahmad, petitioner No.3 for whose use, the property was required died during the pendency of the present petition and therefore, the need has disappeared. He however assailed the findings of the Courts below on issue No.2 relating to default in payment of rent and dubbed the same as erroneous. I am however, unable to agree with the learned counsel. The default alleged by the petitioners in their ejectment petition was from April, 1983 onwards. Both the Courts below have found that the petitioners refused to accept the rent tendered by the rCSP0kidcnt. A.W.1 Riaz Ahmad admitted that the petitioner had stopped receiving rent in April, 1983. The finding that the rent after being tendered to the petitioner by the respondent was deposited with the Rent Controller is ‑imply supported by the evidence on the record and calls for no interference. This petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.A./M‑2932/L Petition dismissed.