1988 PLP 1342 (SCMR)
KAISER ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus RASHID BEGUM and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1342 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | KAISER ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus RASHID BEGUM and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1342 (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 1988 PLP 1342 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1342 (SCMR) (KAISER ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus RASHID BEGUM and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1988.
- C.A. Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 22-7-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.3156 of 1985).
S .13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973) , Arts.185(3) & 199- Ejectment--Tenant had already been evicted--Contention of petitioner that finding with regard to the bona fides of the requirements of landlord suffered from infirmity; because there were discrepancies in the evidence led from the landlords side; that there was no assertion that the accommodation with landlord was not fit for the use of family, and further that she was guilty of concealment--Such findings being findings of fact which were concurrently ,reached by the Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court, refusal of High Court to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction, held, was unexceptionable.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A tenant has sought leave to appeal from order of the High Court dismissing his Constitutional petition, wherein he had challenged his eviction. No stay was granted in this case. The petitioner has already been evicted.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings with regard to the bona fides of the respondents' requirement suffer from infirmity; because; there are discrepancies in the evidence led from the respondents‑side; that there was no assertion that the accommodation with the respondent was not fit for the use of the family; and further, that she was guilty of concealment.
3. All these questions appertain to the findings of fact which were concurrently reached by the Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court. The refusal by the High Court to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction, was unexceptionable. This petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. M.B.A./K‑56/S Petition dismissed.