1989SCMR851 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD FAZIL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARAF-UD-DIN and 10 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR851 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAZIL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARAF-UD-DIN and 10 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR851 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR851 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR851 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD FAZIL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARAF-UD-DIN and 10 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Saman Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Abdul Aziz Kundi, Advocate instructed by Mr. Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th January, 1989.
- Abdul Saman Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Abdul Aziz Kundi, Advocate instructed by Mr. Shakirullah Jan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Peshawar High Court dated 3rd October, 1988 in W.P. No.354 of 1988).
S.17--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Ejectment of tenants--Two brothers occupying twin shops as tenants, proceeded against for eviction- Applications for eviction dismissed as also appeals of landlord--Landlord's Constitutional petitions were, however, accepted and cases were remanded--In remand, case against petitioner tenant was decided in respondent-landlord's favour--Tenant's Constitutional petition against eviction order failed in second round of litigation--High Court's dismissal order proceeded on the ground that ejectment order passed against occupant of twin shops having not been challenged had become final--In the event of acceptance of Constitutional petition, execution of order of eviction of that shop which had since been amalgamated with petitioner's shop would become impossible and that order would remain suspended till final decision regarding disputed shop--Petitioner's pleas that ejectment order against occupant of twin shops had not yet become final and his objection to jurisdiction of High Court and of limitation even if not substantiated, it would appear just proper and fair to grant leave to appeal because in the eventuality of occupant of twin shops' success in his challenge to eviction order, same reverse situation would develop as was visualised by High Court in impugned judgment against petitioner tenant--Leave to appeal was thus granted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a tenant in Cantonment area, against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Constitutional petition, which had arisen out of the orders of his eviction passed on the ground of requirement of the respondent/landlord. The petitioner and his brother Sadiq, occupants of a twin‑shop No.616 and 617, were proceeded against for eviction. The applications were dismissed. Two appeals were filed. Both were dismissed ‑ one on technical ground and the other on merits. Two writ petitions were filed in the High Court. They were accepted and the cases were remanded. After remand the case against the petitioner was decided in respondents' favour on merits. The writ petition of the petitioner, in the second round, was dismissed. He has, therefore, sought leave to appeal. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce that part of the impugned judgment which took note of the case against Sadiq and treated the circumstances therein as going against the petitioner. It reads as follows:‑‑ "The ejectment order passed against the occupant of No.616 (Sadiq), it appears, has not been challenged and consequently has become final. In the event of acceptance of this writ petition, the execution of the order of eviction of shop No.616 which is now amalgamated with shop No.617 in issue, would become impossible and that order would also stand suspended till the final decision regarding the present shop. The petition merits dismissal, there being no substance in it:" Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the ejectment order against Sadiq has not yet become final. He has argued that the appellate order impugned before the High Court was without jurisdiction; that in any case the appeal had become time‑barred, and lastly, that the respondent did not bona fide require the shop in dispute. Even if the petitioner fails in substantiating his pleas, it appears just, proper and fair to grant leave to appeal in this case, because in the eventuality of A Sadiq's success in his challenge to the order of eviction, the same reverse situation would develop as was visualised by the High Court in the impugned judgment against the petitioner. We accordingly grant leave to appeal. Security Rupees five thousand The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to rile all necessary additional documents, the copies of the order passed in Sadiq's case up to the highest stage shall also be produced to be made part of the record of this appeal as soon as possible. Status‑quo to continue in the meanwhile. A.A./M‑734/S Leave to appeal granted.