1989 PLP 1875 (SCMR)
WALI MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR HUSSAIN Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1875 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | WALI MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR HUSSAIN Respondent |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Act. (XI of 1963) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1875 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act. (XI of 1963) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1875 (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 1875 (SCMR) (WALI MUHAMMAD Petitioner Versus MUKHTAR HUSSAIN Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate and Khan Imtiaz Mohammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Sh. Saced Akhtar, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 18‑2‑1989 of the Lahore High Court in F.A.O. No. 37 of 1988). ‑‑S. 17‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether in view of the pendency of appeal proceedings relating to the ownership of the property, in the circumstances of the case, the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties; whether, the case was not distinguishable from other similar cases of ejectment forthwith on ground of default in payment of rent after the decision, of the issue relating to relationship against the tenant, without further examining the issue relating to default in payment of rent‑‑Distinguishing feature being that it was not an old tenancy under the respondent who was the new purchaser and the default found by the, Courts was of very short period and the ancillary question requiring examination would be as to whether in case such an issue would have been framed, the petitioner could not have been found entitled to a discretionary relief.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑After hearing both the learned counsel leave to appeal is granted in this rent restriction matter to examine the validity of the ejectment order passed against the petitioner. Inter alia, the following two questions in particular would need further examination:‑ (a) Whether, in view of the pendency of the appeal proceedings relating to the ownership of the property, in the circumstances of this case, the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. (b) Whether, this case is not distinguishable from other similar cases of ejectment forthwith on ground of default in payment of rent, after the decision of the issue relating to relationship against the tenant, without further examining the issue relating to default in payment of rent, the distinguishing feature being that it was not an old tenancy under the respondent who was the new purchaser and the default found by tile learned Courts below was of very short period. The ancillary question requiring examination would be as to whether in I case such an issue would have been framed, the petitioner could not have been found entitled to a discretionary relief. Order accordingly. Security Rs. 5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on present record. Stay order passed on 24‑4‑1989, shall continue in opration. M.A.K./W‑59/S Leave granted.