2008 PLP 680 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ through L.Rs. — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 680 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ through L.Rs. — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 680 (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 2008 PLP 680 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 680 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ through L.Rs. — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAJANPUR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Islam Ali Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th February, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 10-12-2003 of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan, passed in Writ Petition No.2512 of 1989).
Ss. 13 & 15
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Ejectment application by landlord against predecessor-in-interest of tenants was allowed by Rent Controller
Order passed by Rent Controller was maintained by Appellate Authority and then by High Court
Plea of predecessor-in-interest of tenants that he had purchased property in question, was not accepted by High Court
Impugned judgment of High Court being just and proper, needed no interference by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition calls in question the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 10-12-2003.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that the respondent filed ejectment application against the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners which was allowed by the Rent Controller on 15-12-1987. In the meanwhile the petitioner's predecessor -in-interest tiled a suit for specific performance on the averments that disputed property had been sold to him by the respondent vide agreement dated 18-11-1963, therefore, a decree be passed against the respondent directing him to perform his part of obligation. The suit was ultimately dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court was maintained by the High Court, vide judgment, dated 10-12-2003. Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.298-L of 2004 filed, against the said judgment has also been dismissed by this Court by the order of even date.
3. The ejectment order, dated 15-12-1987 passed by the Rent Controller was maintained by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajanpur, vide judgment, dated 2-11-1989. The petitioner assailed the judgment of the appellate Court before the High Court which has been dismissed through the judgment dated 10-12-2003. Since the plea of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was that he had purchased the property in dispute has not been accepted by the High Court and the Civil Petition No.298-L of 2004 challenging the said judgment, as stated above, has also been dismissed by this Court, therefore, we are of the view that impugned judgment is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court.
4. Thus, petition is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. Leave to appeal refused. H.B.T./M-218/SC Petition dismissed.