1991 PLP 1209 (SCMR)
Mian MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MANSOOR ALI KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1209 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan , |
| Parties | Mian MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MANSOOR ALI KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1209 (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 1991 PLP 1209 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid Saad Saood Jan ,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1209 (SCMR) (Mian MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD MANSOOR ALI KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th January, 1990.
- Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 8-4-1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.1944 of 1989).
Ss.2(c)(i) & .13(2)(i)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)-- Relationship of landlord and tenant
Petitioner who had been paying rent to respondents, resisted ejectment application made against him by respondents on ground of default, contending that respondents were not owners of premises as land on which same was situated vested in Government
High Court repelled contention of petitioner on ground that ownership was not a prerequisite for seeking ejectment of tenant, but ejectment petition could be filed on behalf of a person entitled to receive rent
Relationship of landlord and tenant having been established between parties as petitioner had been paying rent to respondents, High Court rightly interpreted relevant provisions of law.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss.2(c)(i) & .13(2)(i)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Relationship of landlord and tenant‑‑‑Petitioner who had been paying rent to respondents, resisted ejectment application made against him by respondents on ground of default, contending that respondents were not owners of premises as land on which same was situated vested in Government‑‑‑High Court repelled contention of petitioner on ground that ownership was not a prerequisite for seeking ejectment of tenant, but ejectment petition could be filed on behalf of a person entitled to receive rent‑‑‑Relationship of landlord and tenant having been established between parties as petitioner had been paying rent to respondents, High Court rightly interpreted relevant provisions of law. Asghar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th January, 1990. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Lahore High Court, dated 8‑4‑1989 whereby his Constitutional Petition was dismissed against the orders of his ejectment by the competent and appellate authority dated 7‑9‑1987 and 8‑3‑1989 respectively, for default in payment of rent.
2. The only point urged before the High Court and reiterated is that the shop of which the petitioner is a tenant, was situated on land vesting in the Provincial Government and the respondents were not its owners.
3. The contention was repelled by the learned High Court on the ground that "ownership is not a prerequisite for seeking ejectment of a tenant, rather section 2(c) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 contemplates such a petition on behalf of a person who is entitled to receive rent." It had been found as a fact that the petitioner had earlier been paying rent to the respondents. Thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant was established. The Ordinance allowed riling of an application by a. landlord for ejectment of a tenant on r specified grounds. The learned High Court was quite right in interpreting the relevant provisions of the law. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1229/S, Petition dismissed.