1989 PLP 1768 (SCMR)
Malik ABDUL QAYYUM Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK and 8 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1768 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Malik ABDUL QAYYUM Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK and 8 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1768 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1768 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1768 (SCMR) (Malik ABDUL QAYYUM Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ATTOCK and 8 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 241h May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2‑5‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Writ Petition No.190 of 1988). (a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Contention of tenant that his evidence was closed without affording him enough opportunity of hearing and in an earlier civil suit landlord had described him as an illegal occupant/trespasser thus there was no relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑Judgment of High Court mentioned that "at least four opportunities" were allowed to the tenant to produce his evidence but he failed to do so‑‑High Court thus was satisfied that the plea of lack of opportunity was untenable‑‑Tenant, in fact, had no evidence in rebuttal to support his denial of tenancy, therefore, he did not avail all the opportunities‑ Only material tenant wanted to produce before Supreme Court was copy of earlier suit filed by the landlord which in fact was taken note of by the High Court and observed that when landlord entered the witness‑box he was not confronted with the copy of suit which meant that it was a deliberate omission on the part of tenant to avoid explanation on the part of landlord‑‑Held, grounds which prevailed with the High Court in the dismissal of tenant's Constitutional petition were unexceptionable m circumstances. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ‑‑‑S. 13‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Additional ground‑ ‑Ejectment‑‑Tenant when questioned to state his defence against landlord's claim for his ejectment, stated that he being unauthorized occupant /trespasser could not be ejected by recourse to the Rent Controller‑‑Held, such plea on its face was based on illegality and to say the least borders on immoral clam for undeserved gain‑‑Discretion for grant of leave to appeal to the tenant could not be exercised in his favour. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal was refused where pica on its face was based on illegality and bordered on immoral claim for undeserved gain.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, .J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his writ petition wherein an order for his ejectment under the Urban Rent Restriction Law, was challenged. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner's evidence was closed without affording him enough opportunity of hearing. And secondly that in an earlier civil suit the respondent/landlord had described the petitioner as an illegal occupant/trespasser. That being so there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. Regarding the first point it could have sufficed to mention that according to impugned judgment, "at least four opportunities", were allowed to the petitioner to produce his evidence but he failed to do so. The learned Judge in the High Court was satisfied that the plea of lack of opportunity was untenable. However. we may add that the petitioner had no evidence in rebuttal to support his denial of tenancy, therefore. he did not avail all the opportunities. Be that as it may, the only material which the petitioner wanted to produce‑‑copy of the earlier suit filed by the respondent ( Annexure A to the Writ Petition), was taken note by the high Court. It was observed that when the respondent entered the witness‑box he was not confronted with "Annexure A". And we may add that it was deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner so as to avoid explanation on the part of the respondent. Accordingly the grounds which prevailed with the High Court in the dismiss of petitioner's writ petition are unexceptionable. We however, would dismiss this petition for a discretionary relief; namely, grant of leave to appeal on an additional ground. Learned counsel when questioned to state the petitioner's defense against the respondent's claim for his ejectment stated that the petitioner being unauthorized occupant/trespasser could not be ejected by recourse to the Rent Controller. Tit plea on its face is based on illegality and to say the (cast, borders on immoral clam for undeserved gain. The exercise of discretion for grant of leave to appeal to the petitioner, therefore, is refused and this petition, accordingly, is dismissed M.B.A./A‑536/5 Petition dismissed