1981 PLP 229 (SCMR)
SHER JANG-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALIM AND ANOTHER-Respondent
| Citation | 1981 PLP 229 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----Ss. 13 & 15-Finding of fact-Concurrent findings of fact by three Courts below on question of relationship of landlord and tenant-Cannot be interfered with.-Finding of fact. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHER JANG-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALIM AND ANOTHER-Respondent |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 229 (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 1981 PLP 229 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----Ss. 13 & 15-Finding of fact-Concurrent findings of fact by three Courts below on question of relationship of landlord and tenant-Cannot be interfered with.-Finding 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 229 (SCMR) (SHER JANG-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SALIM AND ANOTHER-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Yunus, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, (absent) Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Zamir, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on -Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 16th November, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 14-1-1980, in S. A. O 667/79).
Ss. 13 & 15-Finding of fact-Concurrent findings of fact by three Courts below on question of relationship of landlord and tenant-Cannot be interfered with.-[Finding of fact].
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-Muhammad Salim and another (respond ents) (landlords) filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from the property in dispute as described therein. The petition was accepted and the learned Rent Controller on 16-5-1979, passed an order directing his eviction on the ground of default in the payment of rent.
2. The first appeal and second appeal of the petitioner brought no fruit and were dismissed by the learned District Judge and the High Court on 17-10-1979 and 14-1-1580 respectively,
3. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this court.
4. It may be pointed out that all the Courts below have field that the petitioner was the tenant of the respondent who were also the owner of the property in dispute. These are questions of fact and nothing has been pointed out on factual or legal plane to warrant interference in the concurrent findings of the three Courts below thereon. When confronted with this situation learned counsel tried to argue that actually the petitioner was himself the owner of the property inasmuch as he had purchased the same from the same vendor on 29--J-1978, therefore, the finding that the petitioner was a tenant and not owner was not correct. The contention has no merit and was examined by ail the Courts below who held that actually the sale deed of the petitioner was dated 29-4-1978 and was subsequent to and earlier sale by the same previous owner on 7-3-1978 through a registered deed in favour of the respondents. It was further held that the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner was unregistered. In this state of affairs, in our view, tile petitioner cannot claim any better right in the property, because, is the very nature of things his alleged sale being subsequent and also unregistered could not have preference over a prior and registered deed of sale in favour of the respon dents. If the ownership of the petitioner in the property in dispute was not accepted then it was conceded by the learned counsel, that it would not be possible for him to take any exception to the finding of default in the payment of rent because in fact his client had not given or tendered any rent to the landlords.
5. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.