1980 PLP 931 (SCMR)
NAZIR AHMAD ETC-petitioners Versus RIAZUL HAQ AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 931 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD ETC-petitioners Versus RIAZUL HAQ AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 931 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 931 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Karam Elahee Chauhan and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 931 (SCMR) (NAZIR AHMAD ETC-petitioners Versus RIAZUL HAQ AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court and Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners
- Nemo for Respondents
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J‑The petitioners/tenants have come up in a petition for special appeal against the order of the High Court data 28-6-1977 dismissing their second appeal being S.A.O. No. 281/77 and maintaining the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 24‑3‑1977, by which he had accepted the appeal of the landlords against the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 12‑2‑1976, and had ordered the eviction of the petitioners from the shop in dispute on the ground that the, same was needed by the landlords/respondents for their personal use requirement.
2. The only ground urged by the learned counsel was that on the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the finding, of "requirement for personal use" as recorded by the two Courts below is not correct. The contention has no merit. The judgment of the High Court and the order of the learned Additional District Judge are well sup ported from the relevant record and the attending evidence mentioned therein. The question involved is essentially one of fact. Learned counsel was unable to point out any misreading or omission of any evidence of violation of any principle of law relevant in the context, warranting interference by this Court.
9. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. The petitioners, however, are given two months time to vacate the property in dispute, subject to continuous payment of rent in the meantime. Petition dismissed.