1988 PLP 1338 (SCMR)
REHMAN AND COMPANY REGISTERED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1338 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | REHMAN AND COMPANY REGISTERED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1338 (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 1988 PLP 1338 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1338 (SCMR) (REHMAN AND COMPANY REGISTERED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASGHAR and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th May, 1988.
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 6-2-1985 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W.P. No.1875/84).
S.13(4)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Finding of fact that tenant was ordered to be ejected on account of an agreement between the parties and not as a result of Court adjudication- Contention of petitioner that alleged agreement was not accepted and owned by him--No justification having been shown for interference with findings of fact--Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑A tenant has sought leave to appeal in a rent restriction matter against a judgment of a Lahore High Court; whereby his Constitutional petition was dismissed.
2. The respondents‑side had earlier succeeded in obtaining eviction orders against the petitioner. The present proceedings have arisen out of the petitioner's effort to seek restoration of possession under section 13(4) of R.R. Ordinance which has been declined on a finding of fact that the eviction of the petitioner was on account of an agreement between the parties and not as a result of Court adjudication.
3. The learned counsel has contender that the alleged agreement was not accepted and owned by the petitioner. However, it the findings in the fact rendered by the Court. below against the petitioner is behalf are not set aside by this Court for reasons stated in the petition, he would have no case to pursue any further.
4. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of fact rendered against the petitioner. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. M.B.A./R‑54/S Petition dismissed.