1975 PLP R169 (SCMR)
Ch. KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT COUNCIL (DEPUTY
| Citation | 1975 PLP R169 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ch. KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT COUNCIL (DEPUTY |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP R169 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP R169 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP R169 (SCMR) (Ch. KHUSHI MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus ADMINISTRATOR, DISTRICT COUNCIL (DEPUTY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saeed Akhtar, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing t 22nd October 1974.
- Saeed Akhtar, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 28th February, 1974, in L. P. A. No. 6 of 1974/Writ Petition No. 1384 of 1973). -- Art. 199-Petitioners obtaining joint lease to hold cattle market at specified places but one lessee repudiating lease on site of market being changed by lessor District Council on pretext of lease money being exorbitant-District Council not agreeing to reduction of lease money and cancelling lease-Lease, held, repudiated not merely by one lessee on his own behalf but on behalf -of his co-lessees as well-Not open to petitioners to enforce agreement already repudiated by themselves.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑
The petitioners obtained a joint lease from the District Council, Sheikhupura, to hold cattle fair at certain specified places. The site for the cattle fair was subsequently changed whereupon 0hulam Muhammad, petitioner No. 3, wrote a letter to the Administrator of the District Council repudiating the lease on the pretext that the lease money fixed was exorbitant and the lessees were not likely to make any profit. The Administrator did not agree to reduce the lease money, but accepting the offer made by Ghulam Muhammad he cancelled the lease. The petitioners thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court to restrain the District Council from interfering with the holding of cattle fair by them. A learned Judge found the claim entirely baseless and dismissed the petition in limine on the ground that the lease stood repudiated and that a writ did not lie to enforce an agreement of lease. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. The view adopted by the learned Judge is, in law and facts, not open to any exception. In repudiating the lease Ghulam Muhammad acted not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of his co‑lessees. It was not open thereafter to the petitioners to enforce an agreement which they themselves had repudiated. We concur with the High Court that on the facts of the case a writ did not lie. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.