1999 PLP 2261 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASOOL and others — Petitioners Versus Sh. MUHAMMAD IKRAM — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2261 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL and others — Petitioners Versus Sh. MUHAMMAD IKRAM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2261 (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 1999 PLP 2261 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2261 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASOOL and others — Petitioners Versus Sh. MUHAMMAD IKRAM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdul Sattar Zahid Sh., Advocate Supreme Court with Mian Atta-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 9th July, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 20-3-1998, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in S.A. O. No. 18 of 1992).
S. 13(3)(a)(ii)
Bona fide personal need of landlord
Concurrent finding of fact had been recorded by all Courts below that property in dispute was required by landlord for use and occupation of his son who had no independent business and wanted to establish a business of his own in the rented premises
Such finding of fact not suffering from misreading or disregard of evidence, on record, was unexceptionable warranting no interference.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 20-3-1998 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in S.A.O. No. 18 of 1992 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners herein against their ejectment from the basement of Property No.SE-9-R-35, Nishter Road, Lahore was dismissed.
2. A concurrent finding of the fact has been recorded by all the Courts below that the property in dispute was required by the landlord for the use and occupation of Nadeem (his son) who had no independent business and wanted to establish a business of his own in the rented premises.
3. The learned counsel was unable to show that the impugned order suffers from misreading or disregard of any evidence on record. The impugned order is unexceptionable warranting no interference. However, the petitioner is granted one month's time to vacate the premises in dispute. H.B.T./G-29/S Petition dismissed.