1982C 165 (PLP)
Haji BASHI R AHMAD AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD NAZIR TAHIR AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1982C 165 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | Haji BASHI R AHMAD AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD NAZIR TAHIR AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982C 165 (PLP)?
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 1982C 165 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982C 165 (PLP) (Haji BASHI R AHMAD AND OTHERS‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD NAZIR TAHIR AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Mir Warsi for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
.‑‑ S. 13 read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30‑Eviction‑Contention that Courts below had not appreciated effect of respondent's previous statement that petitioners occupied disputed property as trespassers and could not be treated as statutory tenants in pursuance of S. 30 of Act, property in dispute being neither a house nor a shop‑Matter admitted for consideration, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Akhtar Mir Warsi for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 22nd February 1981. Learned counsel inter alia contends that the two tribunals below had no duly appreciated the effect of the previous statements of respondents Nos. and 4 that the petitioners were occupying the disputed property as trespassers; and that the petitioners could not be treated as statutory tenants in pursuance of section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act. 1958 because the property in dispute was. neither a house nor a shop.
2. Admit. Notice.
3. The operation of the impugned order shall remain, suspended meanwhile subject to notice.
4. In view of the nature of this case it shall be heard within six months. M. Y. M. Case admitted.