1996 PLP 1962 (SCMR)
NANNAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. BASHIR AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1962 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | NANNAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. BASHIR AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1962 (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 1996 PLP 1962 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1962 (SCMR) (NANNAH KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch. BASHIR AHMED and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Irshad Ahmed Virk, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1995.
- Ch. Irshad Ahmed Virk, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- 2. In support of the above petition, Ch. Irshad Ahmed Virk, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that factually the petitioner had taken on rent a piece of land from respondent No.1's father and that he raised construction thereon and, therefore, there was no relationship of that landlord and tenant between the parties. His further submission is that the concurrent finding of the two Courts on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant was not warranted by the record and that the learned Judge in Chambers erred in not interfering with the above concurrent finding.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 15‑8‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.8681 of 1993). ‑‑‑‑S. 13‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties was affirmed by the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Rent Controller had relied upon oral as well as documentary evidence for concluding that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties‑‑‑Tenant failed to produce any documentary evidence to controvert such finding‑‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below were rightly not interfered with by the High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 15-8-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.8681 of 1993 filed by the ~ petitioner against the concurrent judgments of the two Courts below holding that there was relationship of that landlord and tenant between respondent No.1 and the petitioner and granting ejectment on the ground of default, dismissing the same. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. In support of the above petition, Ch. Irshad Ahmed Virk, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that factually the petitioner had taken on rent a piece of land from respondent No.1's father and that he raised construction thereon and, therefore, there was no relationship of that landlord and tenant between the parties. His further submission is that the concurrent finding of the two Courts on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant was not warranted by the record and that the learned Judge in Chambers erred in not interfering with the above concurrent finding.
3. We have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and we find that the learned Rent' Controller has relied upon oral as well as documentary evidence for concluding that there was relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties. The petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to- substantiate that factually he had raised the construction. In our view, the concurrent finding of the two competent Courts has not been rightly interfered with by the learned Judge in Chambers. Leave is refused. A.A./N-421/S Leave refused.